was Cossack right? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 18, 2005

RE: was Cossack right?

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"What can I say? I'm multi-talented!"

and, apparently, double-jointed as well.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"NO ONE messes with AH on this board and gets away with it. So, if you feel the need for further potshots - start a new thread, throw out the facts as you see them, and let's all agree that USM's future is our central agreement. Then take AH's statements and use them in a way that shows us she is wrong in her assertions. I doubt you can accomplish that but best of luck to you. "

Message to Big Blue: AH has more class than you will ever have, she's way out of your league. Quit while you can.............

Date: Mar 18, 2005

No one has given me any good reason to change my opinion that SACS will pull accreditation from USM. I believe USM will simply become a candidate for a long-term probation. Shelby will stay until he wants to leave, and then USM will get off probation. However, I see no evidence that the IHL will remove SFT for any reason.

I don't care about Auburn. Give me facts from USM that point to SFT's removal. It seems the IHL only made a move to reduce the SFT Headache factor for themselves.

SFT is too tied into the business and political circles to be removed.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

Also, my statement about AH was just as baseless as her calling me a troll and equating me with the other two posters. I guess some of you do care when baseless allegations are made against innocent people. You just don't seem to mind piling on me when I say something unpopular.

I have posted several opinions, all of which have been formed from my knowledge of the events at USM from my business perspective. I have been labeled a troll and have been refused rational discourse by posters on the board. Only Stephen Judd has offered to speak to me about my opinions, and he has done so only if I come see him.

I thought this board was about exchange of ideas and information. Go ahead and inform me. Or call me a troll. Whatever's easier for you.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

Apologies to USM Sympathizer, who did provide his or her opinions.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Big Blue
"SFT is too tied into the business and political circles to be removed."

At one point, so was Bernie Ebbers.

While I still am not convinced that IHL will remove Thames from the USM presidency prior to the expiration of his current contract (which is still over a year off), the changes in the IHL governance structure outlined by Virginia Newton yesterday hint that there are those on the board who are growing weary of the Klumbsiness with which the board has operated in the recent past. And anything that changes the way the board does its business will undermine Thames' ability to make blunder after blunder & walk away like Mister Teflon.

The fact that the board will now require all accreditation-related communications to be reported to the commissioner & thence to the trustees means that in the future an inept or ignorant chief administrator cannot hide an institution's problems from IHL (and by extension, from the taxpayers of Mississippi). Think about it: Had Thames been required to report those letters from SACS to someone who had a clue, USM might not be on probation right now.

Furthermore, the "positive" report given by Dr. Sullivan on Wednesday was not so much an endorsement of the Thames administration as it was praise for the way that faculty committees & yes, Dr. Exline have been getting the documentation together to address the specific concerns outlined in the probation.

All this said, I'll return to the beginning. I'm not at all sure that the board will dismiss Thames before the end of his current contract, but it's looking like he's a lame duck.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

Thanks, Invictus, for that thoughtful response.

That was sort of my point about Thames -- your Ebbers analogy. It will take some proof of illegal activities to bring him down. The IHL doesn't care what the faculty thinks. The IHL and/or the legal system will have to act if someone will come up with proof that Thames is breaking laws instead of breaking SACS rules or AAUP guidelines.

I want to know: What has Thames done that will bring him down. Not SACS. Not academic freedom. Not shared governance. I think it's clear that Mr. and Mrs. Mississippi don't give a ringling rat's ass about those issues. But they do care when someone is stealing and/or wasting their money.

My original motivation, before all of this troll B.S., was to point out that the way to get him out is to show that the great "money saver" SFT is, in fact, giving sweetheart deals to his friends and otherwise stealing money.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Klumbsiness "

Invictus,

Did you just invent this term, or had someone already used it? WhoEVER invented it deserves a medal.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

BB, people have been begging (and digging) for that information for a long time.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Third Witch
"BB, people have been begging (and digging) for that information for a long time. "

Then they haven't been digging in the right places. Let's think about some people who might have "2 Sets of Files -- One in the Dome and One at Home" who are not ethically challenged enough to lie to a federal legal authority.

Perhaps a FOIA request should be filed to get all vending contracts, paving contracts, medical services contracts, etc., for the entire university, athletics included. Perhaps $249,999 no-bid contracts wouldn't look so good in a full-page ad in the HA and JCL.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Big Blue
" I want to know: What has Thames done that will bring him down. Not SACS. Not academic freedom. Not shared governance. I think it's clear that Mr. and Mrs. Mississippi don't give a ringling rat's ass about those issues."

BB,

I'm glad the discussion is getting back on track. Forgive me for saying this one more time: I do think SACS will ultimately prove the undoing of SFT. (Most) people in Alabama don't care anymore than (most) people in Mississippi care about academic freedom, shared governance, etc., yet SACS *does* care, and when SACS came down on Auburn like a ton of bricks, even the governor of Alabama got involved, pronto. Here is one reason that is relevant to your concern with economic concerns: when people find out that loss of accreditation can mean loss of financial aid, loss of the economic value of their degrees, and indeed potential loss of a substantial investment of state money AND loss of a money-maker for the local and state economies, they get mighty interested mighty quickly. (Most) people in Alabama are no more sympathetic to Auburn faculty than are (most) people in MS sympathetic to USM faculty, but Auburn's probation got everyone's attention right away and was front-page news for months. I predicted a year ago that Shelby would get into big trouble with SACS; I just didn't expect he'd get into smaller trouble (the current, relatively limited, probation) first. But then, I continually underestimate his ineptness.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Big Blue
" Perhaps a FOIA request should be filed to get all vending contracts, paving contracts, medical services contracts, etc., for the entire university, athletics included. Perhaps $249,999 no-bid contracts wouldn't look so good in a full-page ad in the HA and JCL."

Sounds like a plan; go for it!

Date: Mar 18, 2005

I will put a pro-faculty sign in the window of my business, but I will not do the FOIA request. Ask Rome Emmons (Southern Cleaners) what happens when a businessperson overtly crosses these idiots.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Big Blue
" Then they haven't been digging in the right places. Let's think about some people who might have "2 Sets of Files -- One in the Dome and One at Home" who are not ethically challenged enough to lie to a federal legal authority. Perhaps a FOIA request should be filed to get all vending contracts, paving contracts, medical services contracts, etc., for the entire university, athletics included. Perhaps $249,999 no-bid contracts wouldn't look so good in a full-page ad in the HA and JCL."

Your thoughts have a redeeming quality, perhaps I was too quick to judge. Tell us more......

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Big Blue
"No one has given me any good reason to change my opinion that SACS will pull accreditation from USM. I believe USM will simply become a candidate for a long-term probation. Shelby will stay until he wants to leave, and then USM will get off probation. However, I see no evidence that the IHL will remove SFT for any reason. I don't care about Auburn. Give me facts from USM that point to SFT's removal. It seems the IHL only made a move to reduce the SFT Headache factor for themselves. SFT is too tied into the business and political circles to be removed. "

BB,

If the IHL is merely interested in reducing the headache factor, why was Klumb not present at this month's meeting? And why did Ross appear to be unhappy with the new reporting structure that puts presidents under the authority of the commissioner? Wouldn't both of them have lined up behind it, knowing that it was no big deal, because their guy would keep his power?

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 18, 2005

Is it hard to find a bunch of records that show who SFT gives contracts to? Just get them, put them in the paper along with a "procured" list of Warren Meeting Organizers. A simple statement about "See who benefits from SFT's graft" should be enough to get attention. Then release a whole packet of them to an out-of-state media outlet. "Tonight on 20/20 Tuesday: The Crookedest University In America" would probably be enough to bring down Thames.

I know I'm oversimplifying, but, as G. Washington's Strategic Advisor points out, it may be time to change the strategy.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"
BB,
If the IHL is merely interested in reducing the headache factor, why was Klumb not present at this month's meeting? And why did Ross appear to be unhappy with the new reporting structure that puts presidents under the authority of the commissioner? Wouldn't both of them have lined up behind it, knowing that it was no big deal, because their guy would keep his power?
Robert Campbell
"

By all accounts, Ross is a mindless bully (pun intended). Who knows why Klumb was absent? Maybe he was constipated. The point is that Crofts works for the board, not the other way around. Even if Crofts says "Fire Shelby," the IHL doesn't have to.

Again, I think you're underestimating the power of the good-ol-boy network in MS. It's not quite LA, but it's close.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Big Blue
"Is it hard to find a bunch of records that show who SFT gives contracts to? Just get them, put them in the paper along with a "procured" list of Warren Meeting Organizers. A simple statement about "See who benefits from SFT's graft" should be enough to get attention. Then release a whole packet of them to an out-of-state media outlet. "Tonight on 20/20 Tuesday: The Crookedest University In America" would probably be enough to bring down Thames. I know I'm oversimplifying, but, as G. Washington's Strategic Advisor points out, it may be time to change the strategy."

BB,

Forgive me for asking what is probably a very stupid (but sincere) question: how exactly WOULD getting these records be done? Would an FOIA request be the proper route? Also, does anyone know whether a list of the people in attendance at the Putsch has yet been made available or is ever likely to be? Do we have a rough list of the most important movers and shakers among the Putschers? A few names have been mentioned, but are these the only ones who need to be of concern?

Date: Mar 18, 2005

PS:

Wouldn't most university contracts HAVE to be awarded to the low-bidder? (Again, please forgive what is probably a stupid question.)

Date: Mar 18, 2005

In MS, contracts above $250,000 must have board approval, if I remember correctly. It has been posted on this board that SFT likes to keep contracts under that number so he doesn't have to get board approval -- so that he can do what he wants. Phil Bryant will never audit USM, so as long as SFT can do it, he will hand them out.

We do know who organized the Warren Meeting, just not who attended. Start with the organizers.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Big Blue
"In MS, contracts above $250,000 must have board approval, if I remember correctly. It has been posted on this board that SFT likes to keep contracts under that number so he doesn't have to get board approval -- so that he can do what he wants. Phil Bryant will never audit USM, so as long as SFT can do it, he will hand them out. We do know who organized the Warren Meeting, just not who attended. Start with the organizers."

Question for BB or anyone:

If a project's initial cost is below the $250,000 and the contract is handed out by SFT to one of his buddies, WHAT if it costs more than the initial $250,000? Does the project budget get adjusted? In other words what if the cost exceeds the initial budget? Are the extra monies to finish the project paid to the vendor without Board approval?????

Date: Mar 18, 2005

Don't know. However, this is the type of endeavor that will bear fruit if tended.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

Sleepy...

Date: Mar 19, 2005

One well documented case is the $249,999 contract with Pileum, to run InfoTech (and read everyone's email).

The Board was handed a contract, I think for $1.3 million, and cut it to $1.1 million (over the protests of Roy Klumb) before approving it.

Later on, Thames did the under-the-reader contract for $249,999 to make up the difference.

It would be a good idea to demand a complete list of contracts between USM and business entities during the Thames era--who they were with, what they were for, and how much they were for. Not because it is the only source of leverage against Thames, but because it is one source of leverage.

So I have no problem with Big Blue's suggestion that serious requests be made under the Public Records Act--or with the idea of taking out an ad exposing certain people with vested interests in keeping Thames in power.

What's been bothering me, quite frankly, is the feeling that Big Blue has his or her own reasons for wanting to heighten antagonism between USM faculty and portions of the local business community. It started with the way BB came in in defense of caterer, who was a blatant troll full of bogus information.

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 19, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"Their proposal reminds me of a corporate set up in which you have a board of directors and a CEO. The CEO is responsible for day to day operations and supervision, while the board sets policy. "

...and the Commissioner is the Chairman of the Board!

Time to run this business like a university, indeed!

Date: Mar 19, 2005

No, I was thinking that the Commissioner is the CEO. All the department heads (the presidents) report there. In case of major problems, then the board gets involved. I am out of my area of expertise here.

Date: Mar 19, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"No, I was thinking that the Commissioner is the CEO. All the department heads (the presidents) report there. In case of major problems, then the board gets involved. I am out of my area of expertise here."

A CEO ultimately reports to the Chairman of the Board!

Date: Mar 19, 2005

Not trying to argue, LVN - what happened on Thursday was a good thing.

Date: Mar 19, 2005

Then would the Chairman be the Governor or the President of the Board? (Please don't screw up my great analogy.)