Evaluation of Presidents - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 25, 2005

Evaluation of Presidents

Date: Mar 25, 2005

Shelby is screwed on this criteria from the article:

In a diversity statement adopted in January, the board requires evaluations to include diversity as a significant element.

The statement set goals to increase the enrollment and graduation rate of minorities; increase the employment of minorities in administrative, faculty and staff positions; increase the use of minority professionals, contractors and other vendors; and enhance the curriculum with content that promotes multicultural awareness and understanding.

Date: Mar 25, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"Shelby is screwed on this criteria from the article: In a diversity statement adopted in January, the board requires evaluations to include diversity as a significant element.The statement set goals to increase the enrollment and graduation rate of minorities; increase the employment of minorities in administrative, faculty and staff positions; increase the use of minority professionals, contractors and other vendors; and enhance the curriculum with content that promotes multicultural awareness and understanding."

Angeline, what caught my eye was this "A proposal to make the change may be submitted to the state College Board as early as April.

"It's not that you're trying to find out how someone has done something wrong so you can fire them," said Richard Crofts, interim higher education commissioner. "You hired them for good reason, but there are some ways they can improve their performance."

My first thought (hope) was they can adopt the policy in April and use it for SFT's May evaluation. But the quote from Crofts took that hope away. They could also use the policy to help SFT improve for his second term. Bummer!

I wonder what people will do if SFT gets another term. The depression among, faculty, students, staff and in the community will be immense. I hope no one commits suicide over this.

Date: Mar 25, 2005

It could also be Crofts engaging in some mild misdirection, reassuring people that the change is not being made just to get rid of Thames. When Deno Curris (president from 1995 to 1999) had lost the support of the Board at Clemson, Board members kept saying they stood behind him... but would he please take that great job they'd found for him in Washington.

Thames is past improving, and Crofts seems astute enough to recognize that.

You're right that if Thames gets 4 more years, USM is dead. It will be time for all faculty committees to disband themselves, and for every faculty or staff person who can leave to do so ASAP.

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 25, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"It could also be Crofts engaging in some mild misdirection, reassuring people that the change is not being made just to get rid of Thames. When Deno Curris (president from 1995 to 1999) had lost the support of the Board at Clemson, Board members kept saying they stood behind him... but would he please take that great job they'd found for him in Washington. Thames is past improving, and Crofts seems astute enough to recognize that. You're right that if Thames gets 4 more years, USM is dead. It will be time for all faculty committees to disband themselves, and for every faculty or staff person who can leave to do so ASAP. Robert Campbell"

I think you are right Bob -- everyone who has followed the USM situtation understands these changes are inspired by the weaknesses in the board and its oversight of President's that the faculty vs Thames controversy has exposed. It would make sense that Croft, knowing this, would deny that the Board is deliberately targeting any invidividual Prez, and in a snese it could be true. None the less the new organization can still be used to call any and all Presdient's into account right away -- and Shelby is one of those.