What Started it All-Bottom Line - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 14, 2005

What Started it All-Bottom Line

Date: Mar 14, 2005

Please see the thread called "Thames SACS Violations" which I just kicked up for you from page 2.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Kick for visitor
"Please see the thread called "Thames SACS Violations" which I just kicked up for you from page 2."

Thanks Kick. I will look into it.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: A Visitor
"Many questions would be resolved for the community if we could discuss what started all of this. What is the bottom line problem that caused us to go down this path? I have heard the following: 1. It first started when SFT hired upper administrators without national searches and faculty input through search committees. Q. Was this a violation of SACS principles? If so can you provide chapter & verse numbers as the AAUP recently did? 2. Others say the following: Mixon: Basically, we believe that the College Board is the group that needs to set policy and directives for higher education in our state; and it's their job to hire Presidents'. It then becomes the President's job to implement the policies and directives he or she has been given by the College Board. We believe that the faculty's job is to teach, write, do research, advise students, and do other tasks assigned to them by the administration. Those are distinct and separate responsibilities from those of the President. If the President isn't doing the job that the Board expects fro that office, the Board can make a change, but whether a President stays or goes, is a decision that should be made by the Board-not by the Faculty Senate. Kudzu King: 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. Q. What is the faculty response to these statements from people outside the university? Are any of these violations of SACS principles? Please cite chapter and verse. If, as some faculty imply, these are indeed violations then the community has made a serious error. If they are not violations then perhaps it was just bad management on the part of SFT that violated the spirit of academia but was not "illegal", but still something to be concerned about. "

Good questions.

No one disputes the need for a President/Provost team to do whatever they need to do to help a university run more efficiently and to better fulfil its educational and research mission. The possible violation of SACs policies concerning the reorganization may be due to minimal (or even non-existent) faculty invovement in the process. The reason this is important is because such a reoganization inevitably has a profound effect on academics, particularly if the restructuring is of the kind of monumental scale this one clearly was. "Reorganization" is often a cover for covert agendas that may mark the changing of a university's academic mission and/or of reprioritizing its academic programs. If that faculty is not part of this, not only are they not able to give an administration advice on the best way to achieve those changes, but on whether the changes might be wise from an academic point of view. And, unless they are fully cognizant of these changes of mission and purpose, the courses they are teaching will not align with the new direxction of the university -- a dislocation which can surely raise issues of accrediation not dissimilar to the ones we are currently experiencing.

Mixon is either an idot or a very clever rhetorician. The Faculty Senate DOES NOT and cannot make a change of Presidents -- if it could clearly we'd have a new President by now as witness all of the votes against this present administration. What the faculty senate can do is express its opinion, as it has domne over and over again. And this opinion of the faculty Senate has been consistently reinforced by the general vote of the faculty of no confidence last year and the continued election of a faculty senate which continues to support new votes of no confidence or votes calloing on the board to replace the or for the President to resign.

The unproclaimed irony here is that BUISINESS leaders have a much greater influence on the Board than the faculty. SAfter all -- they have a direct pipeline to many member sof the board through the fact that they share access to the same socio economic hierarchy. Carl Nicholson (former Board member) undoubtedly has lots of business reasons and opportunities to meet with various board members. Few faculty members do. The fact is that all of these lawyers, bankers, doctors, and business folk either know each other or know of each other in a way they will never know faculty. So even if Mixon himself cannot talk directly to a Board member, he knows someone who undoubtedly spends a lot of time with current or past Board members.

So how interesting to have the Warren Paving/Coke Putcshe group acting as though the faculty somehow has special access to the Board which it must overcome by urging attendees to contact and influence the Board on behalf of the Presdient. How ironic in light of the fact that local business leaders and corrupt Mississippi politicans in bed with them threw over Horace and replaced him with their own man.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

I realized in looking at my post (pardon the typos) that I'm painting with a pretty board brush. Obviously I know not every business and professional person in our community has this access --- or if they do, takes advantage of it. I am speaking of a self-selected elite who pretty much run our town and this part of the state through their influecne. So I hope my slightly vexatious post isn't misunderstood as an attack on all business people, at least some of whom I know and find to be very fair and hardworking. If there is a small group of faculty troublemakers, there is also a small elite group of community "lights" who have huge influence. They don't have to yell as loudly to have an affect because they have an access that "troublesome" faculty do not.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

Absolutely correct, SJ! It began with the orchestration of SFT's ascension into the office of President of USM.

When it actually started was probably right about the time that certain people grew frustrated by Fleming's tactics. The Presidential search in 2001 - 02 was a sham, and the outcome was a scam.

Reminds me of a small town where the community has a HUGE say-so in school politics. The Hburg community should be involved, but when you consider that this is supposed to be a comprehensive state university attended by people from all over the world - that small town mentality should be put into check. Follow the money. The ones not getting the money are not the ones grumbling about faculty.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: arkangel
"Absolutely correct, SJ! It began with the orchestration of SFT's ascension into the office of President of USM. When it actually started was probably right about the time that certain people grew frustrated by Fleming's tactics. The Presidential search in 2001 - 02 was a sham, and the outcome was a scam. Reminds me of a small town where the community has a HUGE say-so in school politics. The Hburg community should be involved, but when you consider that this is supposed to be a comprehensive state university attended by people from all over the world - that small town mentality should be put into check. Follow the money. The ones not getting the money are not the ones grumbling about faculty."

Yeah, I'd kill to get some confirmation of the rumors about HOW the Presidential search actually came down (rumors of payoffs . . . influence . . deals . . etc.)

Kill (METAPHOR ALERT).

I'd LOVE to follow the money . . .

Date: Mar 14, 2005

Freud:

An elegant recital of the history as I remember it. I can well remember the candidates being trotted in and being very enthusiastic about two of them . . . . at least enthursiastic enough to debate among my colleagues which of the two would be best . . . there was NO enthusiasm for the Dr. Thames at all. And I can remember how the word leaked out that he was going to be the guy even beofre it was officially anniounced. It felt so much like the fix was in that the AAUP put quickly put together the poll which handsdown went to the other two. Then we had the spectacle of the announcement and the clear and public disappointment and disagreement of Newton, who broke with the Board and refused to make it a unanimous vote. That this breach happened so publically when it is traditional to unite behind the candidate of the majority is what has always made me believe Newton is a true white hat despite the sense of the Board anti-USM. It was a spectacular show of dissent at the time . . .

Date: Mar 14, 2005

By the way, Freud -- your post could easily be recast as a letter to the ed -- it is excellent.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

Stephen, I always enjoy your thoughtful and educational post. Thanks for another good one.

However, I was really trying to get to the Chapter and Verse of SACS policies that were violated (if any) when SFT appointed his top administrators without searches. I heard it violates AAUP guidelines, but the business community would really take notice if it was related to SACS. Amy Youg's post cites chapter and verse of SACS policy, but I can't find the link that was posted to the actual policy. That is what is needed and explaine dto the public.

Also I hoped faculty participants could address Mixon's and Kudzu King's statements concerning reorganization and "policy being set by the board" and that faculty should just follow orders. (See first post above.) The community needs to see these addessed with quotes of SACS principles if there is a connection.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

From the thread Thames SACS Violations:

Amy comes through with :http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/PrinciplesOfAccreditation.PDF

Thanks Amy.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Freud
"Dr. Thames elicited the help of paid consultants in his campaign.........."

This is the first I've heard this. Tell me it isn't true!

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: A Visitor
"Stephen, I always enjoy your thoughtful and educational post. Thanks for another good one. However, I was really trying to get to the Chapter and Verse of SACS policies that were violated (if any) when SFT appointed his top administrators without searches. I heard it violates AAUP guidelines, but the business community would really take notice if it was related to SACS. Amy Youg's post cites chapter and verse of SACS policy, but I can't find the link that was posted to the actual policy. That is what is needed and explaine dto the public. Also I hoped faculty participants could address Mixon's and Kudzu King's statements concerning reorganization and "policy being set by the board" and that faculty should just follow orders. (See first post above.) The community needs to see these addessed with quotes of SACS principles if there is a connection. "

Thanks Visitor, for the complement. I'll admit I tend to be a bit less apt to do the page and verse thing than some of my professional researcher collegues so I apologize for not being more focused and to the point. I agree with you that in light of our standing with SACs the direct linkage of the actions of the administration and the Board to possible violations of specific SACs guidelines are probably far more persuasive arguments with the public at this point. I'm assuming that many of the arguments we have here in the university about this issue must sound like arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin to a non theologian. But linking actions actual policy violations is much more concrete and less abstract for many non-academicians.

I will say that I DO believe the Board has the duty to set and administer system wide-policy and to see that there is reasonable coherence among institutions. The problem -- and this is difficult to link to SACs -- is that while we know at ground level the faculty has little input into these policies, that is tough to prove. The Board views the Presidents as being the only legitimate link to the univeirsities, and will not acknowlege that at times the voice of the President and of the faculty might be at desperately at odds. It demolishes the problem inherent in a dislocation between an administration and a faculty by ignoring the distinction. While generally I can understand a Board's reluctance to disagree with a President, the problem is that the current suystem invites such conflict because the faculty have NO direct contact with the Board, no representation non-voting or otherwise. Thus the faculty voice that rises in disagreement with poor policy or management cannot but be seen as a disssident voice because there are no legitimate channels of communication by which it can express its disagreement directly to the Board. The Board, to all intents and purposes, and intimate knowlege of administrative and managerial culture through its own experience and its contact with Presidents and Provosts. It has little access to faculty culture. Now that Presidents (and even Provosts) are coming increasingly from professional administrative backgrounds rather than faculty/academic backgorunds, this difference in culture and understanding of mission and strategies has only been heightened. The Board simply refuses to acknowlege this important reality and the gulf continues to widen.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

In response to a query posed by A Visitor: Is it a violation of SACS principles to hire an upper administrator without a national search or faculty input?

Unilateral presidential appointments (i.e., without input from a faculty with a composite of some millenia of experience) will tend to be less judicious that ones relying on such broad consensus and advice. SACS Principles of Accreditation require that "the institution has qualified administrative and academic officers with the experience, competence, and capacity to lead the institution" (3.2.8). If it can be demonstrated that one or more upper administrators are inexperienced or incompetent to lead the institution, then yes, such hires would be in violation of SACS principles.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: A Visitor
I was really trying to get to the Chapter and Verse of SACS policies that were violated.........

Visitor,

Sections of SACS guidelines that you might find particularly relevant
are 3.2.4, 3.2.8, 3.4.12, and 3.7.5.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

A small piece of data that everybody has seemed to have missed since the first reports of the "business community" meeting being organized - the ouster of Horace Fleming was spearheaded by none other than Bob Mixon, among others. Do not doubt for a moment the ability of this man to get exactly what he wants. He has done it before and it looks like he is gearing up to do it again.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Gator Eagle
"He has done it before and it looks like he is gearing up to do it again."

Gearing up to do what again?

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Gator Eagle
" Do not doubt for a moment the ability of this man to get exactly what he wants."

One thing he can't get is my business, whether he wants it or not.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

It all got started when Fleming did a paper for the IHL that showed how short-shrifted USM was under the way the board gave out the money. The paper upset Khayat and the president of MSU Portero. On the other hand they were already upset about our going full bore into the Gulf Coast programs to broaden them. Both OM and MSU saw their stakes in the game seriously diminished. The governor was getting a black eye about this too, from some of our folks. That's where the Warrens come in; they were and still are close to Musgrove. Anyway, when the funding was being cut by about $15 million Fleming had the Cabinet work out a budget that he reviewed. it was tight but nobody got fired that I know of. In April of that year there was a meeting of the athletics foundation (Mixon was president of that group). Fleming I think asked for the meeting to talk about an increase in student fees with some part of it to go to athletics. They wanted more than Fleming was willing to give, the word is a cool million. Mixon accused Fleming of not being on board. Fleming was surprised by that. Giannini had set the whole thing up with Mixon beforehand. And guess who was at the meeting uninvited by fleming--Thames, not an officer but a financial supporter. When Fleming said no to the million because he said USM did not have it and he would have to cut faculty to do it that sealed his fate. Then Mixon, Giannini, and others started whipping up their buds. This was fine with OM and MSU. We heard the calls for help when the cabal was getting itself in line to do in Fleming. We did not respond. At that time the Senate did vote confidence in Fleming, as did the SGA and there was lots of support on the campus and in the community. It was called an assassination. That is what it was. But whatever it was this was the first shot fired. Now Thames has the gun that fired it. Fleming knew what we needed to do but he was too forward in doing it. He broke the china.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

One other person had a big hand in getting Fleming ousted: Coach McLellan. Fleming retired McLellan. McLellan worked hard to get him back. McLellan talked to all his buds like the Bubbas and the Earls. No doubt about that. Coach Mc has admitted it. That ouster was an ATHLETICS DRIVEN COUP!

Date: Mar 14, 2005

Newton wasn't the first to withhold a vote on an obvious choice. NICHOLSON was the one who voted against Fleming and then blew out the door before the announcement. You see, this has been Nicholson's longstanding objective: to control USM. For him and his buddies.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

Wow! It would be impossible to write a story with so much intrigue. What happened when and what will happen next all seem to be fitting together. Sad story about a sad school. In Hamlet's Ghost rendering, OM and MSU were witnesses to a muder, as were many others. This should tell us what we are up against. This year the budget will be cut, maybe significantly. Time for more heads to roll.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

It's sad how, often in such stories, athletics is at the root of many of the problems. The same was (is) true at Auburn, not to mention many other schools. I wish "pro" athletics had never become associated with American universities. Intramural athletics would be fine, but the system that exists now is almost by definition corrupt and corrupting.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

SACS doesn't like "undue influence" by a group of people over the functioning of a university.

It likes "undue influence" from an individual even less. (Think of Bobby Lowder's control of Auburn.)

These stories about Mixon's influence on USM ought to be of interest to SACS.

I still think, though, that the Paving Company Putsch was a desperation move. In the past Mixon didn't have to rally the troops in such a visible way to get what he wanted. I suspect he also didn't have to make a detailed public case for what he wanted.

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"By the way, Freud -- your post could easily be recast as a letter to the ed -- it is excellent. "

Thanks. When the Bubba Rebellion toppled Fleming and installed Shelby, I boycotted athletics for a year, and tried to get other faculty to do the same. I was looked at as if I was the anti-Christ! Even faculty loves dem football. If action is to be taken that would be effective, it would be to do everything possible to NOT support athletics--but faculty do not have the b-lls to do this. Just quiet resistance would do--a "Gown Out" at all games.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

God bless you each and every one.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: tiny tim
"God bless you each and every one."

Hey Tiny:

Wait for Christmas, will'ya? It's time for Mr. Easter Bunny!

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Freud
" Hey Tiny: Wait for Christmas, will'ya? It's time for Mr. Easter Bunny!"

It seems that the Bunny lives at USM year round. Like the one in Alice in Wonderland

Date: Mar 14, 2005

Might work. But I will tell you what WILL bring down Shelby Thames and the Lisa SLAY Maders of this campus: a walk-out. I am telling you folks. It would bring Thames down and might even bring down the IHL Board. This is what it is going to take. It pains me to say so, but I don't believe we have enough time to correct things before SACS arrives for their full monte review.

Date: Mar 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Chapter N. Verse
"In response to a query posed by A Visitor: Is it a violation of SACS principles to hire an upper administrator without a national search or faculty input? Unilateral presidential appointments (i.e., without input from a faculty with a composite of some millenia of experience) will tend to be less judicious that ones relying on such broad consensus and advice. SACS Principles of Accreditation require that "the institution has qualified administrative and academic officers with the experience, competence, and capacity to lead the institution" (3.2.8). If it can be demonstrated that one or more upper administrators are inexperienced or incompetent to lead the institution, then yes, such hires would be in violation of SACS principles. "

Thanks C. n V. I found this and accented the interesting parts.

From SACS

3.7.5 The institution publishes policies on the responsibility and authority

of faculty in academic and governance matters.

From Faculty Handbook

9.3.2 Discretionary University Advice. In all other personnel recommendations pertaining to the academic staff, except termination, the University President is not required by either state law or Board policy to establish institutional advisory bodies, and the President may or may not seek advice within the institution. Nevertheless, the President elects to be advised by subordinate institutional officers and by faculty bodies and has approved procedures governing their deliberations. In such cases, the procedures regulating the processes by which advice is tendered are established and maintained at the discretion of the University President.

So it appears the president had the right to hire anyone he wished to the upper administration. However, the faculty were correct in expecting to be consulted since that was the way it was usually done and it would have been wise for the president to maintain good relations with faculty because of the circumstances under which he was appointed.