Yep  - once again, something in the water does not compute.

As stated in the article, the vast majority of the funds to construct the Football stadium addition are generated by revenues from the suite sales and athletic foundation.  In fact, I don't believe any of the funds generated through the bond issue were to be used for the football stadium.  The bond issue funds were to go towards Bennett Auditorium renovations, new tennis courts, and renovations to Reed Green Coliseum.   The Athletic Administration purposefully crafted the bond issue this way to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  The inaccuracies concerning the bond issue and its connection to the football stadium were intentionally generated by opponents of the bond issue to stir up the misinformed masses -- a common politic ploy.  That is why Giannini was so emotional in his post-bond press conference.  It was a lot easier to stir up negative energy about the bond issue if you wanted people to think the funds were going to be used for a football stadium, rather than facilities everyone in the community could use. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Victim of Politics
"As stated in the article, the vast majority of the funds to construct the Football stadium addition are generated by revenues from the suite sales and athletic foundation.  In fact, I don't believe any of the funds generated through the bond issue were to be used for the football stadium.  The bond issue funds were to go towards Bennett Auditorium renovations, new tennis courts, and renovations to Reed Green Coliseum.   The Athletic Administration purposefully crafted the bond issue this way to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  The inaccuracies concerning the bond issue and its connection to the football stadium were intentionally generated by opponents of the bond issue to stir up the misinformed masses -- a common politic ploy.  That is why Giannini was so emotional in his post-bond press conference.  It was a lot easier to stir up negative energy about the bond issue if you wanted people to think the funds were going to be used for a football stadium, rather than facilities everyone in the community could use.  "

---

The above information is correct, Sorry friends, the funds to build the stadium addition were NOT part of the bond election. Any one who says we're using state funds to build a stadium instead of funding academics is misinformed. All this money is private funds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Green Hornet
" The above information is correct, Sorry friends, the funds to build the stadium addition were NOT part of the bond election. Any one who says we're using state funds to build a stadium instead of funding academics is misinformed. All this money is private funds."

---

Thanks, GH.  You are right; the stadium expansion w/ luxury boxes was never part of the proposed bond issue.  To correct a minor misunderstanding though, a small portion of the bond issue would have been used to upgrade some of the facilities in the existing stadium, maybe it was the vending areas or bathrooms.  I really don't remember, and it hardly matters anymore.

Also, for clarification, my recollection is that the No Not Now opponents (the East Hattiesburg group headed up by K. Fairley) did not include opposition to the Sky Boxes in their publicity.  However, shortly before the election, a second opposition group (I think it was a statewide restaurant group) mailed out material to Hattiesburg residents that implied that the luxury boxes would be included in the bond vote.

I also agree that some of this mis-characterization was at the root of Mr. G's displeasure at the  failure of the bond issue.  However, the simultaneous promotion of both the Sky Box campaign and the Bond Issue made it very easy even for persons of good will to become confused about the distinctions between the two.

 

One of the concerns voiced by Hattiesburg residents was that the benefits went to the entire area but the tax was only applied to Hattiesburg. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: asdf
"Maybe another way to look at this is that athletics has people that can raise enough funds to build a $22 million expansion of the stadium while the university cannot raise a few hundred thousand to help the library.  Why do the best fund raisers work for athletics and not the foundation?  Another point, the people that are raising funds for the university do not seem to have a focus.  Why did we get a million dollar gift to create a new pharmaceutical sales program?  If a pharmaceutical company wants to give money to the university, why not funnel it into something like the nursing program, which USM has a great history in and that kind of gift could put it back on the map?"

---

 

Excellent questions, and the first one could be asked of many other universities besides USM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" Would the bond issue have passed more readily had it included Lamar County?"

---

no, mississippi does not have county sales tax, only municipalities have sales taxing authority

quote:

---

Originally posted by: asdf
"Maybe another way to look at this is that athletics has people that can raise enough funds to build a $22 million expansion of the stadium while the university cannot raise a few hundred thousand to help the library.  Why do the best fund raisers work for athletics and not the foundation?  Another point, the people that are raising funds for the university do not seem to have a focus.  Why did we get a million dollar gift to create a new pharmaceutical sales program?  If a pharmaceutical company wants to give money to the university, why not funnel it into something like the nursing program, which USM has a great history in and that kind of gift could put it back on the map?"

---

Well, who has money go give? Business people, lawyers, doctors, ect. Well guess what. If all you do is bash them on your message board they are not going to give you anything.

I doubt that serious donors make such decisions based on this message board. As far as I know we have only bashed two lawyers (three if you count A. Dvorak) and maybe two doctors, and Ten business people. This is an open board. We have no idea if people's ex-inlaws, disgruntled neighbors, or who all, is posting.

However, I know of at least one substantial gift that has been redirected, and I bet there are a lot of others.

How would you like to donate a mill and have the President snub you because it was a department he was mad at? That's worse than anything that's said on this board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kudzu King
" Well, who has money go give? Business people, lawyers, doctors, ect. Well guess what. If all you do is bash them on your message board they are not going to give you anything."

---

KK--

I am one of those local Hattiesburg business people.  I have been posting and lurking on this board since day one.  Never have I felt "bashed." (Well, somebody called me a "pompous ass" the other day; but I took that personally, not as a member of the business community.) However, I have heard many expressions of frustration at the lack of understanding and support from the business community. 

Yes, I do hear occasional questions about boycotting this or that business.  No, I do not participate in those efforts; but that has more to do with my skepticism about the effectiveness of those actions than anything else. I view those boycott discussions more as an expression of concern and frustration than anything else.  I have seen similar discussion on the Eagletalk board from time to time, and my reaction is the same to those proposals.

BTW, I hear a lot of varied expressions from my local business associates.  I think (i.e., this is just my opinion) that a fair number of us, the local business folks, are mostly concerned about the overall decline at USM, not so much who is to blame.  Several people (okay, two) have mentioned to me that the infamous Thursday meeting at Warren Paving "was an obvious ploy to prop up Shelby Thames" and "insulted the intelligence of the invitees." 

One of the organizers expressed to a very good and trustworthy friend of mine, her sincere (I believe) concern for USM.  I truly believe that she (the organizer) wants USM to succeed.  I also believe that the only organizational paradigm that she understands is that of a strong manager, top down, quasi-military type of business structure.  To me, that is documentation of her lack of exposure to, education about or familiarity with other, more participatory types of management. If she is not familiar with shared business management, it would be naive of me to expect her to intuitively understand and embrace shared governance at a university. 

I am not intentionally bashing the organizer when I say that she is unfamiliar with participatory management structure.  The cynic in me wants to say, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," but in fairness to her, she appears to use a hierarchical system in her business, and it seems to work for her.  Why should I expect her to go out and learn about other management styles?  We business folks like to say, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

I truly believe that the underlying reasons for the problems at USM are three-fold: (1) diminished financial support from the legislature, (2) insufficient support from the IHL Board (financial and otherwise), and (3) the many needs of Shelby Thames. Do I then believe that the faculty, students, alumni, business community are without responsibility? No. Looking back, I expect that there are things all of us could and should have done differently in response to the challenges posed by the three underlying problems. 

But by saying that, I truly hope that I am not viewed as "bashing" anyone other than the legislature, the IHL board, and Shelby Thames. To the charge of bashing those three, I plead guilty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ram
" KK-- I am one of those local Hattiesburg business people.  I have been posting and lurking on this board since day one.  Never have I felt "bashed." (Well, somebody called me a "pompous ass" the other day; but I took that personally, not as a member of the business community.) However, I have heard many expressions of frustration at the lack of understanding and support from the business community.  Yes, I do hear occasional questions about boycotting this or that business.  No, I do not participate in those efforts; but that has more to do with my skepticism about the effectiveness of those actions than anything else. I view those boycott discussions more as an expression of concern and frustration than anything else.  I have seen similar discussion on the Eagletalk board from time to time, and my reaction is the same to those proposals. BTW, I hear a lot of varied expressions from my local business associates.  I think (i.e., this is just my opinion) that a fair number of us, the local business folks, are mostly concerned about the overall decline at USM, not so much who is to blame.  Several people (okay, two) have mentioned to me that the infamous Thursday meeting at Warren Paving "was an obvious ploy to prop up Shelby Thames" and "insulted the intelligence of the invitees."  One of the organizers expressed to a very good and trustworthy friend of mine, her sincere (I believe) concern for USM.  I truly believe that she (the organizer) wants USM to succeed.  I also believe that the only organizational paradigm that she understands is that of a strong manager, top down, quasi-military type of business structure.  To me, that is documentation of her lack of exposure to, education about or familiarity with other, more participatory types of management. If she is not familiar with shared business management, it would be naive of me to expect her to intuitively understand and embrace shared governance at a university.  I am not intentionally bashing the organizer when I say that she is unfamiliar with participatory management structure.  The cynic in me wants to say, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," but in fairness to her, she appears to use a hierarchical system in her business, and it seems to work for her.  Why should I expect her to go out and learn about other management styles?  We business folks like to say, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. I truly believe that the underlying reasons for the problems at USM are three-fold: (1) diminished financial support from the legislature, (2) insufficient support from the IHL Board (financial and otherwise), and (3) the many needs of Shelby Thames. Do I then believe that the faculty, students, alumni, business community are without responsibility? No. Looking back, I expect that there are things all of us could and should have done differently in response to the challenges posed by the three underlying problems.  But by saying that, I truly hope that I am not viewed as "bashing" anyone other than the legislature, the IHL board, and Shelby Thames. To the charge of bashing those three, I plead guilty."

---

Thanks for an extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking post!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: ram
"
KK--
I am one of those local Hattiesburg business people.  I have been posting and lurking on this board since day one.  Never have I felt "bashed." (Well, somebody called me a "pompous ass" the other day; but I took that personally, not as a member of the business community.) However, I have heard many expressions of frustration at the lack of understanding and support from the business community. 
Yes, I do hear occasional questions about boycotting this or that business.  No, I do not participate in those efforts; but that has more to do with my skepticism about the effectiveness of those actions than anything else. I view those boycott discussions more as an expression of concern and frustration than anything else.  I have seen similar discussion on the Eagletalk board from time to time, and my reaction is the same to those proposals.
BTW, I hear a lot of varied expressions from my local business associates.  I think (i.e., this is just my opinion) that a fair number of us, the local business folks, are mostly concerned about the overall decline at USM, not so much who is to blame.  Several people (okay, two) have mentioned to me that the infamous Thursday meeting at Warren Paving "was an obvious ploy to prop up Shelby Thames" and "insulted the intelligence of the invitees." 
One of the organizers expressed to a very good and trustworthy friend of mine, her sincere (I believe) concern for USM.  I truly believe that she (the organizer) wants USM to succeed.  I also believe that the only organizational paradigm that she understands is that of a strong manager, top down, quasi-military type of business structure.  To me, that is documentation of her lack of exposure to, education about or familiarity with other, more participatory types of management. If she is not familiar with shared business management, it would be naive of me to expect her to intuitively understand and embrace shared governance at a university. 
I am not intentionally bashing the organizer when I say that she is unfamiliar with participatory management structure.  The cynic in me wants to say, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," but in fairness to her, she appears to use a hierarchical system in her business, and it seems to work for her.  Why should I expect her to go out and learn about other management styles?  We business folks like to say, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.
I truly believe that the underlying reasons for the problems at USM are three-fold: (1) diminished financial support from the legislature, (2) insufficient support from the IHL Board (financial and otherwise), and (3) the many needs of Shelby Thames. Do I then believe that the faculty, students, alumni, business community are without responsibility? No. Looking back, I expect that there are things all of us could and should have done differently in response to the challenges posed by the three underlying problems. 
But by saying that, I truly hope that I am not viewed as "bashing" anyone other than the legislature, the IHL board, and Shelby Thames. To the charge of bashing those three, I plead guilty."

---

ram

I probably feel closer to that than many here would like to believe. But, at the same time, you know as well as I do that there are many of us (business men) out here who are sitting on the fence. I have little faith in Thames ability to move progressivly at this point. But, to be honest have don't have much more faith in the faculty leadership.

To be honest I was much more understanding of the faculty before I started posting here than I am now. If I had employees like many I find here, I would terminate them on the spot. Now, I also understand that academia is not "the real world" and you can't do those sort of things.

I am not pro-faculty. The University is bigger than the faculty. I am not pro-Thames, the University is much bigger than him. I am pro-Southern Miss....and I can't understand why the two refuse to work with each other. One is a guilty in this respect as the other.

If it were possibly, and I know it's not, I wish we could start over with clean slate.

I'd like to comment "ram" for the excellent post. I will comment, though, that business people who have found autocratic top-down management to be effective generally do not direct enterprises that are remotely as complex or as large as a university. It's one thing to run a "large" real estate office with, say, 15-20 salespeople & a few clerical staff or a car dealership with 30 employees, but it's something else again to direct a "bidness" that has over 500 mostly doctoral-level professionals & hundreds more support staff. (With due respect to the medical profession, I don't think even FGH has 500 physicians on its roster -- it's still mostly support staff jobs, many of which do not require baccalaureate degrees at all.)

"KK", I understand your reservations about both SFT's leadership and faculty leadership. I'm not a business person; I'm a educational administrator (somewhere else). Educational administration is a lot like herding cats & "faculty leadership" borders on being an oxymoron ("lead cat"?). My point is that the mark of a truly great educational leader -- and I've worked for department chairs, deans, vice presidents & presidents that I categorize thusly -- is that s/he is able to get the majority of faculty & staff on the same page willingly & cultivates respect (if not total agreement) among the "movers & shakers" on the faculty & staff. As far as I can ascertain, SFT is totally ineffective at doing that.

You point out an important problem in academic time cycles, Kudzu King, but perhaps not for the reason you mentioned.  There is a serious time lag that is currently playing out.  The IHL, the local community, the alumni association, students, parents are all behind the curve on understanding the damage already done and ongoing by this administration.  The faculty warned of these concerns three years ago and no one listened, whatever the reasons.  Much of the damage is becoming, if not irreperable, then at least far-reaching.  Loss of faculty, decline in student quality, lowered academic standards, reduced emphasis on academics, increased difficulties in recruiting quality faculty, loss of administrative infrastructure, starving of financial programs, inattention to building maintenance, misplaced funding for boondoggles - all these things interact to have a long-term negative impact on a university.  The effects are not seen immediately, they evolve over time.  Southern Mississippi will continue to feel them long after Shelby Thames is gone.  One of the things that I learned over a long industry career was to hire and then listen to my experts.  Another was to never ignore, lie to, or underestimate my regulatory agencies.  A third was to focus on my company's core competencies and not to jump at every market opportunity that presented itself. 

Shared governance at a university does not imply or value a lack of administrative leadership.  There is simply no academics leadership at the University of Southern Mississippi.  There is also none waiting in the wings; Shelby Thames has seen to it.