News Is Leaking Out About Meeting Attendees - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 15, 2005

News Is Leaking Out About Meeting Attendees

Date: Mar 15, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"More and more information is coming out about which business people attended the Bash USM Faculty meeting. Since it is still difficult to separate rumor and fact, posting names is not a good idea, at least for a while. What I have heard is that many realtors were in attendance. My experience here at USM is that when a department is recruiting a new faculty member, a realtor often is asked take the candidate around and show her/him homes in the Hattiesburg area. It usually is a realtor that some faculty members have had experience and trust. I am suspicious that the realtor that I have trusted attended the meeting. It may be that many did not know exactly what form the meeting was going to take. It was falsely advertised as a pro USM meeting, when it was mainly a bash most of the faculty meeting. My point in this post is that many departments may be hiring this year, or maybe next year, and I doubt that most faculty want to recommend a realtor that was a willing participant at this meeting. Being able to show houses to prospective faculty member is an IN that most realtors would want to have. In the future, I will check out thoroughly the realtor or realtors that I suggest incoming faculty consider in their quest to buy a house. So far, I have had to scratch an orthopedic surgeon and a real estate firm off my list of businesses I will patronize. I hope I do not find out that my electrician, plumber or appliance repair person attended. It is really hard to replace these skilled people. "

Cossack-use caution with generalizations. Some attendees were on our side, and went to get the scoop for us. That is how much of the info on the board got here last week. Let's not break these undercover agents' identities. But don't assume all who attended were Thames supporters.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Freud
"Cossack-use caution with generalizations. Some attendees were on our side, and went to get the scoop for us. That is how much of the info on the board got here last week. Let's not break these undercover agents' identities. But don't assume all who attended were Thames supporters."

Cossack,

I second Freud's words of caution. Many there were in support of USM and the faculty. Everyone there was certainly not a supporter of the current regime. Very important for all to have the facts!

Date: Mar 15, 2005

I do not disagree with your call for caution. Indeed, I do not think that putting names forward is appropriate until the information can be verified. I intend to do that by asking people directly if they indeed attended, what was their purpose and what is their stance on the faculty. Any one who attended and found them selves out of place and out of step with the purpose of the meeting will have ample time to make their case. In the case of my physician, I am satisfied that he does not support faculty. As this soap opera continues, I think we will find that more and more faculty will become difficult to convince that someone went to this meeting without any idea about what would transpire. The Hattiesburg paper had at least one story about it prior to the meeting. The fact that only people with invitations could attend, and that information was checked at the door to verify each person’s status was know, should have been a signal. Freud , while some people may have attended with the idea of getting information to pass on, how many do you think there were with that intention who would be mislabeled?

Date: Mar 15, 2005

It is possible that some of those who attended the Thursday night meeting changed their views during or following the meeting. Let's at least give them the shadow of doubt until the facts come out. It is also possible that some who attended felt "duped" if the meeting's agenda was not as announced.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

Caution is fine. Do any of you have any suggestions on how we will know if some were duped, some changed their minds, or were not aware of the true nature of the meeting? More to point, will we be able to separate the jeep from the Croats any better two weeks from not than we can now?

Date: Mar 15, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"More to point, will we be able to separate the jeep from the Croats any better two weeks from not than we can now?"

I suppose all we can judge is what they say and what they do. We can't read their mind. The jeep and the Croats among the faculty will, of course, be judged the same way.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

If I were a business person who was invited to attend a highly publicized "political meeting" that turned out to be a Ku Klux Klan rally, I would 1) leave immediately and 2) publicly state that I did not agree with the organisers' views and disavow any relationship to those organisers. Regardless of whom the organisers were, this would be the only way to make sure I was not lumped in with the Klan supporters. I use the Klan analogy, as we can probably agree that is not acceptable behaviour, free speech or not.

If so many invitees found Mixon's (and others') comments to be offensive, insulting, mean-spirited, etc., why have they not publicly said "We support USM, but we do not support what went on at that meeting"?

And that, as we say in fencing, is the point.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

I haven't seen mention of any health care administrators such as FGH, Hattiesburg Clinic or Wesley's CEOs, etc. who were invited/attended meeting. Were there any? I will really be disappointed if that is the case. But it would help explain their silence regarding the decline of the nursing program. Wouldn't I like to know how these "business" leaders were hand selected for the invitation only gathering and how they defined "business" since there didn't appear to be any ministers, teachers, nurses, etc. Hmmm, might it have something to do with their focus on profit over people?

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Epee
"If I were a business person who was invited to attend a highly publicized "political meeting" that turned out to be a Ku Klux Klan rally, I would 1) leave immediately and 2) publicly state that I did not agree with the organisers' views and disavow any relationship to those organisers. Regardless of whom the organisers were, this would be the only way to make sure I was not lumped in with the Klan supporters. I use the Klan analogy, as we can probably agree that is not acceptable behaviour, free speech or not.

If so many invitees found Mixon's (and others') comments to be offensive, insulting, mean-spirited, etc., why have they not publicly said "We support USM, but we do not support what went on at that meeting"?

And that, as we say in fencing, is the point."

EXACTLY....

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Does anyone know if our old friend Angie Dvorak attended the paving company tete-a-tete?