93% No Confidence? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 13, 2005

93% No Confidence?

Date: May 13, 2005

Why are these people working tonight? They're supposed to be at a certain bar celebrating something or other.

Date: May 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: phantom
"Why are these people working tonight? They're supposed to be at a certain bar celebrating something or other."

man, ya'll keep it up. the "bubbas" love this stuff. hehehehehe - you lose.

Date: May 13, 2005

I hope so.

Date: May 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: phantom
"Why are these people working tonight? They're supposed to be at a certain bar celebrating something or other."

Better that we are all online. We might otherwise be operating motor vehicles.

Date: May 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Son of Bubba
"Could someone explain to me how a "no confidence" vote of, what was it 36 to 2, calculates to 93% of the faculty? I figure that 36 votes represents no more than maybe 3 to 5% of the faculty. Where is the flaw in my logic?"

Last year after the Faculty Senate voted 40-0 for No Confidence in SFT, there was a vote for all the faculty. A total of 462 faculty voted. Result: 430 No Confidence; 32 Confidence. So 430/462 = 93% No Confidence.

I hope this helped Son of Bubba.

Date: May 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Pollster
" Last year after the Faculty Senate voted 40-0 for No Confidence in SFT, there was a vote for all the faculty. A total of 462 faculty voted. Result: 430 No Confidence; 32 Confidence. So 430/462 = 93% No Confidence. I hope this helped Son of Bubba."

there you go Pollster, that's civility and the way to win.

Date: May 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Pollster
"I hope this helped Son of Bubba."

S.O.B. has not done his homework.

Date: May 13, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: claps with two hands
"there you go Pollster, that's civility and the way to win."

Ask and you shall receive. ( That is if I know the answer.)

Date: May 14, 2005

I'm surprised to see you react to my question. Gosh, I just asked a question because I didn't understand your numbers. I'm still somewhat confused in that I'm under the impression that 400+ faculty represents 50 to 60 percent of the total faculty? If I'm in the ball bark with my impression, then how does that vote represent 93% of the total faculty? Would you also enlighten me about the format of the big faculty vote? Was it a vote taken at a Faculty Senate meeting, through some AAUP medium, or what?

I have moved back to Mississippi since the first of the year after several years away, and I have been reading about the SFT controversy. I am a frequent reader, but until now I haven't posted. I have been reading Eagle Talk, Carribean Eagles Roundtable, and this board in an attempt to determine what's right and what's wrong.

The name "Son of Bubba" has personal significance for me, but if you read any other meaning into it, you would be wrong. I have no personal bias at this point, but I feel very strongly that truth cuts both ways. If your 93% number is accurate, you shouldn't have any problem expaining it.

Date: May 14, 2005

Son of Bubba,

The 462 faculty who voted on the resolution of no confidence at the general faculty meeting in March 2004 were not "50 to 60%" of the professors at USM. There were around 540 real faculty overall in March 2004. Run the numbers and you'll see it was a much higher turnout than is typical for local, state, or federal elections. (As for student government elections, let's not even go there...)

Since March 2004 the number of faculty at USM has dropped (to around 500, by rough estimate), but the number of faculty claimed by the USM administration has gone up, from 650 to over 700.

That's because the Thames regime has been deliberately padding the faculty numbers, by counting administrators with faculty titles (including Thames himself) and grad students who teach classes. There is also a new category called "other faculty," whose meaning is anybody's guess (personally, I think it was invented for Ken Malone).

So if include faculty not voting in the March 2004 general faculty meeting, around 80% of the USM faculty expressed no confidence in him, as opposed to 93% of those who voted. And what percentage of 540 is 32 (the number of faculty who voted and opposed the resolution of no confidence)?

Robert Campbell

Date: May 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Son of Bubba
"I'm surprised to see you react to my question. Gosh, I just asked a question because I didn't understand your numbers. I'm still somewhat confused in that I'm under the impression that 400+ faculty represents 50 to 60 percent of the total faculty? If I'm in the ball bark with my impression, then how does that vote represent 93% of the total faculty? Would you also enlighten me about the format of the big faculty vote? Was it a vote taken at a Faculty Senate meeting, through some AAUP medium, or what? I have moved back to Mississippi since the first of the year after several years away, and I have been reading about the SFT controversy. I am a frequent reader, but until now I haven't posted. I have been reading Eagle Talk, Carribean Eagles Roundtable, and this board in an attempt to determine what's right and what's wrong. The name "Son of Bubba" has personal significance for me, but if you read any other meaning into it, you would be wrong. I have no personal bias at this point, but I feel very strongly that truth cuts both ways. If your 93% number is accurate, you shouldn't have any problem expaining it. "

Good Morning, Son of Bubba.

I will try to answer some of your questions. I would have to go search the actual threads on the old FireShelby board posted on the top of this page to get the actual numbers. So what I'm giving is from memory.

The number I gave last night were accurate. I understand you confusion thought. The 93% "No Confidence" should be "93% of those voting" were No Confidence. Obviously all of the "Core of Instruction" did not vote. I *believe* only full time faculty, no adjuncts or visiting faculty could vote. (This part will require research or members of AAUP to remind us of the guidelines.) So it is hard to determine what percent of the faculty participated, although I remember the number 69%, but don't quote me. Remember this occurred over a year ago.

The format of the vote was it was conducted by AAUP on a Wednesday evening. Faculty had to present I.D.s to vote. There were speakers in the auditorium with voting in the lobby outside. After a few quest speakers the floor was open to anyone who wanted to speak. The whole process, including counting, was overseen by "outside" observers, I don't know who, but believe they were members of the community.

On the coast they, actually hired an outside firm to conduct whole process. I believe the provost actually approved the payment form this.

I hope this helped. If you have more questions, I will try to answer them if I can.

There were many trolls last night and some posters seemed to get testy. Sorry that happens on this Board sometimes.

Date: May 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Pollster
"
. . . The 93% "No Confidence" should be "93% of those voting" were No Confidence.. . .

That is the conventional way to report election results: by the percentage of votes cast, not by the percentage of the eligible electorate.

Date: May 14, 2005

Hey you, SOB!

Inflating the numbers of faculty members is archetypical Thamesian behavior. Here is how he used it to benefit his PR spin:

- inflated numbers reduce the percentage of faculty voting against him;

- inflated numbers reduce the percentage of faculty leaving the university;

- inflated numbers that include adjuncts, visiting, and others interchangeably with faculty reduce the relative "importance" of tenured and tenure-track professors;

- inflated numbers that include administrators, consultants, and financial contributors give these individuals the appearance of academic credibility where they may have none;

- inflated numbers give the appearance of the university being larger than it is thus playing into the 20,000 student goal.

Date: May 14, 2005

Pollster, your memory is correct. IDs were checked at the point of voting. Anybody could come in and listen, but in order to get a ballot, you had to present a faculty ID. No adjuncts, grad students, part time, etc. Members of the community were, in fact, on hand to observe the voting. In fact, some effort was made to get impartial community members who had no connection to the university--one was a member of the clergy, if I recall correctly.

Date: May 14, 2005

Even national presidential elections at the national level get a much smaller turnout than the no confidence election yielded at USM. And U.S. presidents are elected by a much smaller margin. Anybody who views the USM no confidence vote as anything but a whopping victory simply does not understand the nature of elections.

Date: May 14, 2005

If I may suggest, Son of Bubba is a visitor and not a troll. Let's refer to him as SnOB (no, sorry, that won't work either.) What about S.Bubba? His initials are very unfortunate and I don't want him to think we're being rude.

Date: May 14, 2005

The format of the vote was it was conducted by AAUP on a Wednesday evening. Faculty had to present I.D.s to vote. There were speakers in the auditorium with voting in the lobby outside. After a few quest speakers the floor was open to anyone who wanted to speak. The whole process, including counting, was overseen by "outside" observers, I don't know who, but believe they were members of the community.

The full faculty vote was called by the Faculty Senate, not the AAUP chapter.

Date: May 14, 2005

I am the real Bubba and I posted as Bubba Loves Catifsh for many months. Son of Bubba is not mine. He will get no inheritance from me.

Date: May 14, 2005

That's such a ubiquitous name in these parts. This poster seems educable. Let's not run him off.
Lest any of you Yankees be making fun, Bubba just means Brother.

Date: May 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"If I may suggest, Son of Bubba is a visitor and not a troll. Let's refer to him as SnOB (no, sorry, that won't work either.) What about S.Bubba? His initials are very unfortunate and I don't want him to think we're being rude."

I agree, which is why I indicated that the placement of the comma was important. I could have addressed him as "Hey, you SOB!" but I didn't!

Like everything that Shelby does, it's all in the spin.

Date: May 14, 2005

Thank you.

Date: May 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Pollster
" Good Morning, Son of Bubba. I will try to answer some of your questions. I would have to go search the actual threads on the old FireShelby board posted on the top of this page to get the actual numbers. So what I'm giving is from memory. The number I gave last night were accurate. I understand you confusion thought. The 93% "No Confidence" should be "93% of those voting" were No Confidence. Obviously all of the "Core of Instruction" did not vote. I *believe* only full time faculty, no adjuncts or visiting faculty could vote. (This part will require research or members of AAUP to remind us of the guidelines.) So it is hard to determine what percent of the faculty participated, although I remember the number 69%, but don't quote me. "

Pollster,

Are you getting your 69% figure by dividing 462 faculty who voted in March 2004 by 650?

If so, you're using the inflated faculty numbers then being put out by the Thames regime, and widely cited in the newspaper accounts.

After some discussion on the Fire Shelby board, the number of real faculty at USM was estimated as 540 in March 2004.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"The format of the vote was it was conducted by AAUP on a Wednesday evening. Faculty had to present I.D.s to vote. There were speakers in the auditorium with voting in the lobby outside. After a few quest speakers the floor was open to anyone who wanted to speak. The whole process, including counting, was overseen by "outside" observers, I don't know who, but believe they were members of the community. The full faculty vote was called by the Faculty Senate, not the AAUP chapter."

That is correct. Thanks Angeline. As a member of F.S., I should have known that. Two things happen when you get old: 1) your memory goes bad and 2) Errr.... I can't remember.

Date: May 14, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Pollster,

Are you getting your 69% figure by dividing 462 faculty who voted in March 2004 by 650?

If so, you're using the inflated faculty numbers then being put out by the Thames regime, and widely cited in the newspaper accounts.

After some discussion on the Fire Shelby board, the number of real faculty at USM was estimated as 540 in March 2004.

Robert Campbell"

Actually, Robert, I just remembered that number and threw it out with a caution to readers. However, I do believe you are correct. It was the number put out by the media based on the erroneous figures for the "Core of Instruction", as it is called here.

Date: May 14, 2005

If a new no confidence vote were held today, I wonder if the anti-Shelby percentage would rise or fall compared to last year. I suspect he has even less support now than he had then, if only because of SACS probation. Many of us a year ago were predicting SACS problems, and some of us now believe that even bigger, deeper SACS problems lie ahead in the not-too-distant future.

What are the major Stupid Things that have occurred since the last vote? I can think of a few:

Drop in Tier Status.

SACS probation.

Raines scholarship.

"Toy" McLaughlin's comments.

Alleged "lynching" remarks by top administrator.

USM involvement in organizing Paving Putsch.

Can anyone else think of any others?

Date: May 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"If a new no confidence vote were held today, I wonder if the anti-Shelby percentage would rise or fall compared to last year. I suspect he has even less support now than he had then, if only because of SACS probation. Many of us a year ago were predicting SACS problems, and some of us now believe that even bigger, deeper SACS problems lie ahead in the not-too-distant future. What are the major Stupid Things that have occurred since the last vote? I can think of a few: Drop in Tier Status. SACS probation. Raines scholarship. "Toy" McLaughlin's comments. Alleged "lynching" remarks by top administrator. USM involvement in organizing Paving Putsch. Can anyone else think of any others? "

Don't forget the CoB fiasco with Grimes and Doty. And the attempt to remodel the coast library for the nonexistent Executive MBA program on the coast. And the reporting of 20 faculty for post tenure review, which didn't follow the faculty handbook guidelines.

Oh H*ll, I’ll just link the F.S. letter to the IHL. http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/resolutions/Thames_Feb_02_2005.htm

But to answer your question, there are many new faculty that were hired, some to replace the many leaving and some, like in CoST, to expand programs that bring in money. If these new, untenured people vote, I have no idea what their views are. Many are confused and may not even participate. Or the may be intimidated to vote pro SFT.

Date: May 14, 2005

"If a new no confidence vote were held today, I wonder if the anti-Shelby percentage would rise or fall compared to last year...."

At one of the last AAUP meetings of the year, results of a second survey on shared governance at USM were presented. (As I recall, the survey was mailed to over 500 individuals considered "faculty," so any pro-Thames faculty would have had opportunity to register their love for the leader.) The results, I believe, were very close to those of a survey done roughly a year earlier -- i.e. over 90% of respondents unhappy with governance under Thames. (I presume that Amy Young would have the details.) Not quite a "no confidence" vote, but probably tapping the same deep reservoir of dissatisfaction.

Date: May 14, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"That's such a ubiquitous name in these parts. This poster seems educable. Let's not run him off. Lest any of you Yankees be making fun, Bubba just means Brother."

Sometimes it is short for other names, like my girl cousin, Barbara.