There has been much discussion about the propensity of SFT to vastly overstate the quality of activities at USM, to inflate the numbers, to make comparisons that are obviously erroneous, and put out other misinformation. While he has demonstrated a propensity to be a blowhard, the volume of erroneous information and the blatant distortions suggest a situation that routinely appears in countries where there is a dictator. We saw it in 1940's Germany, recently in Iraq, and currently in China. I am of the opinion that SFT has shut himself off from any information that he does not want to hear by collecting a group of sycophants around him. Many of the sycophants have left and are replaced with less capable replacements whose input is even less realistic.
My question is, how much of this behavior is now evident to the Board office and some members of the Board? The second question is, are there any members of the Board who recognize that if they leave SFT in place long enough, the fallout will be land on them. I am speaking specifically of the probation that will follow the SACS official visit. By that time, SACS will not be concerned with SFT, but with an incompetent College Board. A Board that is responsible for many other universities including State and Ole Miss. Dragging out the inevitable of dumping SFT is going to spill over on the other universities like ugly on an ape.
When I was in industry, I had a CFO friend who used to talk about the "Law of the Second Comptroller." When a new company President comes in, there's a honeymoon period. After that, if the numbers look bad, the Comptroller gets fired. Then, the second Comptroller is hired. It is only after the second honeymoon period, under the second comptroller when the numbers still look bad, that the board looks to the President for cause.
Shelby has gone through a staggering number of staff, administrative, and faculty changes. Count the number of VPs, provosts, deans, lawyers, chairs, PR directors, and faculty members that have left under his reign? The board may not be as academically attuned as some would like but its members include some savvy business people who know good management from poor. Couple that with the expertise and experience brought by the Commissioner.
Yes, Cossack, I think they understand. I am speculating that they are very worried about finding the proper replacement not only for the president but for the administrative team and find that task the most daunting one.
quote: Originally posted by: Cossack "... I am of the opinion that SFT has shut himself off from any information that he does not want to hear by collecting a group of sycophants around him. ... "
Cossack,
This statement rang a bell for me. I recall in SFT's February Update letter his first paragraph essentially stated that he "ignores the negative" and "concentrated on the positive to keep moving forward". So I went to the web site with the purpose of linking and quoting the letter. Surprise! Surprise! The link to the February letter connects you to the January letter. I can no longer find the February "President's Update".
I personally have heard first-hand reports about some cabinet meetings with the president where even those in his inner circle are afraid to speak up. I think that our president really is in a bubble and has so insulated himself that it is becoming even more difficult to administer this university.
I am guessing that most folks are simply afraid to speak up in his presence because he is prone to tantrums, but will follow through on being vindictive.
I think I said this before, but I wonder if this is why, or part of why, LSM left? Possibly she saw that she had to preserve even a few shreds of professional credibility? Opinions?
quote: Originally posted by: Third Witch "I think I said this before, but I wonder if this is why, or part of why, LSM left? Possibly she saw that she had to preserve even a few shreds of professional credibility? Opinions?"
Opinion: LSM realized the truth of what many have said here -- she had become no more than a personal press secretary for SFT. Defending Thames' failed presidency was growing more difficulty daily. The task was a career-killer, and steadily taking its toll on her physical and mental health.
quote: Originally posted by: Amy Young "I personally have heard first-hand reports about some cabinet meetings with the president where even those in his inner circle are afraid to speak up. I think that our president really is in a bubble and has so insulated himself that it is becoming even more difficult to administer this university. I am guessing that most folks are simply afraid to speak up in his presence because he is prone to tantrums, but will follow through on being vindictive. Amy Young"
During the recent heavy weather, I've had the opportunity to watch all of you at work on deck and aloft. You don't know wood from canvas! And it seems you don't want to learn! Well, I'll have to give you a lesson.
quote: Originally posted by: Reporter " Cossack, This statement rang a bell for me. I recall in SFT's February Update letter his first paragraph essentially stated that he "ignores the negative" and "concentrated on the positive to keep moving forward". So I went to the web site with the purpose of linking and quoting the letter. Surprise! Surprise! The link to the February letter connects you to the January letter. I can no longer find the February "President's Update". Check for yourself: http://www.usm.edu/president/archive.html"
The link is screwed, but the letter is still available, if you're still interested:
quote: Originally posted by: hot link " The link is screwed, but the letter is still available, if you're still interested: http://www.usm.edu/president/letters/2_21_05.html"
Thanks Hot Link. Cossack's post ("I am of the opinion that SFT has shut himself off from any information that he does not want to hear by collecting a group of sycophants around him.") reminded of the first paragraph in SFT's letter.