CL : eval of univ presidents - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 8, 2005

CL : eval of univ presidents

Date: Apr 8, 2005

I think there's only one president who should be concerned about this and and that president is probably making some proverbial bricks right now.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

Hopeful excerpt:

Richard Crofts, interim higher education commissioner, said he doesn't know how to evaluate a president without input from students, faculty, administrators and community leaders.

Getting input from constituents is part of guidelines from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, said Debra Buchanan, an American Council on Education fellow who works with the College Board. Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas are among the states that ask for constituent participation, said Buchanan, who drafted the plan.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

Brace yourselves, friends. Everytime SFT gets his tail in a crack we see a barage of anti-faculty letters in the newspaper. I think he's really in trouble now and he's going to try to save himself by beating up on the faculty (and by extension, the university). In my opinion this may be his most damning legacy: the stirring up of anti-education, anti-intellectual, anti-faculty sentiment in his own self-interest. He has single-handedly set back attitudes toward higher education in south Mississippi 2 decades at least.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

Sounds like the cost of hiring the USM tyrant is no more benevolent dictators elsewhere. Looks like the prezs will rally against some of what Crofts is doing. Bet Klumb, Ross and Thames love this new break in the story.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Magnolia
" In my opinion this may be his most damning legacy: the stirring up of anti-education, anti-intellectual, anti-faculty sentiment in his own self-interest. He has single-handedly set back attitudes toward higher education in south Mississippi 2 decades at least."

Mr. Wonderful,

This is a very well articulated summary of the Thames legacy...heartbraking.

Mal

Date: Apr 8, 2005

heartbreaking...although heart "stopping" works too in a peculiar sort of way!

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Magnolia
"Brace yourselves, friends. Everytime SFT gets his tail in a crack we see a barage of anti-faculty letters in the newspaper. I think he's really in trouble now and he's going to try to save himself by beating up on the faculty (and by extension, the university). In my opinion this may be his most damning legacy: the stirring up of anti-education, anti-intellectual, anti-faculty sentiment in his own self-interest. He has single-handedly set back attitudes toward higher education in south Mississippi 2 decades at least."

Absolutely true. Right on, Magnolia. Never say this wasn't shrewd on his part. The sad thing is that an articulate, attractive, outspoken university president can have a huge impact on education statewide. If we ever wonder why education is underfunded, we need look no further than the opinion of those who elect our legislators. Until those opinions change, Mississippi will always be 50th. As you said, SFT only stirred those sentiments up. The funny thing is that folks sending there kids away to college don't understand how this attitutde straps the teacher in the classroom. Teachers that aren't respected are fighting an uphill battle.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

But I don't understand why the presidents should have any say in how they are evaluated. That's not how it's done in the business world.

Why, that would be like letting the inmates run the asylum.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

"Richard Crofts, interim higher education commissioner, said he doesn't know how to evaluate a president without input from students, faculty, administrators and community leaders . . . . . . Other constituents listed in the plan include alumn, staff and College Board administrative staff. University of Mississippi Chancellor Robert Khayat said legislators should participate."

This unbelievably clumsy plan is far too unwieldy as to be effective. When the "scores" of these constituencies are added up and divided by N, there will be a regression to the mean and the IHL will be able to interpret that mean in any way they so chooses. It will be able to justify whatever decision they want to make simply by saying "but we obtained input from numerous constitencies."

I doubt that heads of the Health Department, the Welfare Department, the Tax Commissiion, or any other state agency are evaluated in this manner. Taking this model to its logical absurdity, let the head of the prison system be evaluated by the prisoners, the guards, the parolees, the victims, and the judges and juries who put the prisoners in the clink,

The IHL has not listened to the faculty in this matter thusfar. The faculty opinion has been made very clear to them but they have taken no action. And now they want to listen to everbody and their brother? The resultant regression to the mean will surely keep the IHL in the driver's seat and it can take whatever road their little heart desires. If I as a citizen were asked to evaluate the head of the Tax Commission, for example, I would be insulted. I would know full well that I was not qualified to make that judgment and that my opinion was being solicitied just to make me feel good.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Malapropism
" Mr. Wonderful, This is a very well articulated summary of the Thames legacy...heartbraking. Mal"

Duly noted, Mal. Even this early in the morning

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Dipsy Doodle
""If I as a citizen were asked to evaluate the head of the Tax Commission, for example, I would be insulted. I would know full well that I was not qualified to make that judgment and that my opinion was being solicitied just to make me feel good. "

But in higher education where the norm (not the exception) is shared governance and faculty members, as professionals, play a critical role is setting and implementing policy this is not only appropriate but essential.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

DD: A more relevant comparison is the way that faculty are evaluated: by students, their peers, their chair, their dean, their provost, and their president. What's good for the principal employees of a university is good for the manager of the university.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Best Practices
"But in higher education where the norm (not the exception) is shared governance and faculty members, as professionals, play a critical role is setting and implementing policy this is not only appropriate but essential."

BP, but I think what the other guy is saying is that any faculty input will be swamped when we add input from staff, parents, students, taxpayers, et al. You'll get what you want (faculty input), but it won't be heard from all the statistical noise now thrust into the system. Sounds like an even more sophisticated way of not hearing from faculty at all.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Best Practices
"But in higher education where the norm (not the exception) is shared governance and faculty members, as professionals, play a critical role is setting and implementing policy this is not only appropriate but essential."

But we're not talking about "shared governance" of the university. We're talking about "evaluation of university presidents." Those are entirely two different things. Should taxpayers, legislators, community leaders, and the many other groups mentioned in the proposal, participate along with the faculty in shared governance at the university? Of course not. Shared governance at universities pertains to faculty participation. Would you prefer that the "community leaders" regularly convene at the paving company and determine things normally a faculty obligation? That would be taking the concept of shared governance a little too far. The poster named "reiterate" said it much better than I did: "You'll get what you want (faculty input), but it won't be heard from all the statistical noise now thrust into the system. Sounds like an even more sophisticated way of not hearing from faculty at all."

Date: Apr 8, 2005

Please provide the wording that indicates an equal weighting of the "evaluations" of various constituents. An academic, like Dr. Crofts or his successor, will be in a better position to evaluate university presidents than the political appointees of the IHL board. Regardless of how this is currently being spun or manipulated, a commissioner who is allowing previously ignored faculty voices to be heard is a good thing.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Best Practices
" allowing previously ignored faculty voices to be heard is a good thing."

Indeed it is. And selling a customer a car with an engine is also a good thing.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

The suggested system for annual reviews works every well in the great state of Georgia. It just frightens the "you know what" out of the Thames thugs, supporters, and I would guess, IHL. The President at MSUW's comments to the reporter for the CL story wounded whiney to me. I am thrilled to learn that much of the board power in handling annual reviews of university presidents will now be in the hands of an individual who knows more than the board with their political ties.

As others have noted, if this kind of system had been in place when Thames was hired (over the strong objections of the majority of the USM faculty), the first and/or second "ANNUAL" review would have ended the Thames reign of terror.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Georgia Peach
" if this kind of system had been in place when Thames was hired (over the strong objections of the majority of the USM faculty), the first and/or second "ANNUAL" review would have ended the Thames reign of terror. "

Do you mean that the community business leaders would have actually joined the faculty in their opposition? Unlikely, friend.

Same is true for the legislature and the alum association. They are not speaking up now. Why would they have alligned themselves with the faculty way back then?

Date: Apr 8, 2005

You will note that the chancellor at Ole Miss, Robert Khayat, was the only head to be quoted who said it was a good idea. While his suggestion that the legislature be included in the process is suspect, at least he is for broad participation. Strong and experienced administrators with a high degree of integrity such as Khayat are not afraid of the devil himself when it comes to doing what is right.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

Hear! Hear!

The problem with so much of what we do at USM is to try and make decisions based on the inept individuals involved rather than the processes known to work elsewhere.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Best Practices
"Hear! Hear! The problem with so much of what we do at USM is to try and make decisions based on the inept individuals involved rather than the processes known to work elsewhere."

You are right in the sense that USM seems to always be trying to reinvent the wheel. But just as college alumni believe their school is the best, and auto manufactures believe their car is the best, heads of college boards probably believe the system they have developed is the best. It could be that those beautiful hubcaps on the Georgia car have square wheels. While they might work very well on the Georgia Hupmobile, they might not fit the vintage Mississippi car. On the other hand, they might. I suppose most anything might be better than what we have now, but let's not be deceived into thinking this new method of evaluating presidents is going to give the faculty any more input than it now has.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

Peaches and Cream,

No, I don't mean that community leaders would actually join faculty in their opposition. No way. Not here. But the current system of evaluating MS universities presidents is indeed flawed and needs to be fixed. In my opinion the GA system would be much better than the current one. University presidents need to be evaluated every year.

My understanding from talking with faculty and administrator friends around the country is that the MS IHL way is not the norm. My friends experience with the Georgia system is that it works very well and that (unlike here), faculty evaluations of administrators are very important and valued.

Under the Lucas administration, faculty evaluated not only chairs/directors and deans but also the president and the VPAA. They were part of the annual reviews conducted by Faculty Senate (I served on FS for six years). I vaguely remember the evaluation of the president and VPAA stopping during Huffman's years as VPAA or Provost Henry but admittedly, I could be incorrect about that. Whether the evaluations were thrown in the trash is irrelevant, at least as faculty we had the opportunity to evaluate the president. I also remember that before each SACS site visit, faculty received a long evaluation questionnaire (sent from an out-of-state consulting firm). The responses were supposedly confidential and were returned to the consulting firm via mail. I suggest that this was to prevent ballot box stuffing. Those became part of the SACS report.

I was not suggesting that with the GA system that the cronies of Thames would suddenly line up with the USM faculty. I believe that "pigs will fly past the window" before that happens.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Magnolia
"Brace yourselves, friends. Everytime SFT gets his tail in a crack we see a barage of anti-faculty letters in the newspaper. I think he's really in trouble now and he's going to try to save himself by beating up on the faculty (and by extension, the university). In my opinion this may be his most damning legacy: the stirring up of anti-education, anti-intellectual, anti-faculty sentiment in his own self-interest. He has single-handedly set back attitudes toward higher education in south Mississippi 2 decades at least."

Excellent comment!

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Dumb as The Rock
"But I don't understand why the presidents should have any say in how they are evaluated. That's not how it's done in the business world. Why, that would be like letting the inmates run the asylum."

ANOTHER excellent comment!

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"DD: A more relevant comparison is the way that faculty are evaluated: by students, their peers, their chair, their dean, their provost, and their president. What's good for the principal employees of a university is good for the manager of the university."

Yet ANOTHER excellent comment; this thread is one of the best I have read in a long time!

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Dumb as The Rock
"But I don't understand why the presidents should have any say in how they are evaluated. That's not how it's done in the business world.
Why, that would be like letting the inmates run the asylum."

Whoa! Mal has nominated another quote in this thread & I'm nominating this one.

Mr. Wonderful, are you listening?

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Whoa! Mal has nominated another quote in this thread & I'm nominating this one. Mr. Wonderful, are you listening?"

We're all ears, Invictus, 24/7. Duly noted.

Date: Apr 8, 2005

You'll notice that Shelby Thames is not quoted regarding the proposed new system for evaluating presidents.

If you're conspiratorially minded, you might take that to mean that Thames knows he will be OK, so he's not complaining. But that fails to take into account Roy Klumb's changed public profile, his absence from last month's Board meeting, the absence of Ross and Colbert from the Board retreat on February 21, and so on.

Another interpretation: Thames knows that criticizing the new system will guarantee that he becomes toast.

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Voice in the wilderness
"You will note that the chancellor at Ole Miss, Robert Khayat, was the only head to be quoted who said it was a good idea. While his suggestion that the legislature be included in the process is suspect, at least he is for broad participation. Strong and experienced administrators with a high degree of integrity such as Khayat are not afraid of the devil himself when it comes to doing what is right."

This is highly significant. Regardless of what any USM employees or alumni would like to think, the opinion of the Chancellor of THE University of Mississippi is going to carry a lot of weight with some very influential & politcally well-placed people. Given his extensive background in higher education (SACS committee work, NCAA, etc.), Khayat probably knows more about effective administration, best practices & trends in higher education than any of the other university presidents. He also knows that whining about how you are evaluated is not "class." I'm glad I'll be making my contribution (via tuition) to his paycheck beginning in a couple of months!