Many of you may remember a chronology of events that I posted a few weeks back. Today's events concerning Dr. Thames certainly are not a word-for-word match of what I had presented here earlier. My view now is that the IHL may have pulled off a slightly more sophisticated version of what I presented back then.
By giving SFT 2 more years now, he has a built in period with which to "make USM [SACS] whole" again. In the legal sense, making someone whole is nothing to cheer or congratulate someone over. In this case, the IHL and Thames' community supporters are prepared to make a hard sell for Thames' act of making USM whole again. That is, if Thames is able to claim some victories in the SACS area over the next 2 years, and if his health is holding up, there will be a major push by the powerbrokers in the community/IHL/legislature to offer him what will then be a second 1-year renewal to continue on as a "change agent."
There are two obstacles: (1) his age/health, and (2) SACS. Putting the health issue aside, all of the onus is now on SACS. Are you prepared to do what it takes to get the job done? If so, prepare to have the credit snatched from your clutch by the business community, the legislature and some in the IHL.
There are other wildcards in this scenario. Who will be the permanent IHL Commissioner? What home-grown replacements for Thames can be cultivated/harvested in the next 2 years? Who knows the answers to these, or even other questions not posed.
quote: Originally posted by: walt "Are you prepared to do what it takes to get the job done? If so, prepare to have the credit snatched from your clutch by the business community, the legislature and some in the IHL.
May-July: The IHL Board takes no action on Thames; in fact, makes hardly a mention of his status as the USM president. Same IHL Board passes a very weak, if any, form of Crofts' governance plan. Several system presidents are already on record as opposing his new plan to evaluate system presidents, and they will come forward to oppose the big parts of his new governance scheme. The governance guru from Georgia just got s-canned, so his credibility with certain members of the board is diminished.
August: USM forwards its report on SACS probation to Atlanta to alot of local fanfare and media hoopla.
September: SACS visits USM campus to affirm that progress has been made in the areas of concern from December '04. USM claims victory on departure.
December: SACS removes USM's probationary status at its annual December meeting. Huge celebrations ensue in Hattiesburg heading into Christmas holiday season.
January-February: SACS victory celebrations continue, but fade away. IHL Board commends Thames on his hard work during the SACS incident and rewards him with a contract extension, to begin in May 2006. This type of "recess" extension (i.e., outside the usual window for extending/firing prezs) is much easier to pull off than having tried to do it back in May/June of 2005. Coming on the heels of a big SACS crisis victory, Thames' extension passes IHL muster by a vote of 8-4 (private), then 12-0 (public). Virginia Shanteau-Newton has to make the announcement (to her chagrin), while sly dogs Klumb, Ross and Colbert look on. Surprising to some, Robin Robinson is in the sneering section with Klumb et al.
The Board would still be clinging to Thames had he not brought them oceans of bad publicity.
And you have yet to explain how Thames can rule for two more years without bringing more publicity to the Board. Or how those "sly dogs," Roy Klumb et al., can keep backing Thames, no matter what happens, without pi$$ing away their political capital on the Board.
This is why I think your original scenario was FUD, and why your current one continues to be FUD.
Do you want Thames to remain in control of USM? Do you actually think that would be a good thing? Do you accept the Thamesian line that USM professors are lazy whiners?
quote: Originally posted by: Robert Campbell "walt,
This is why I think your original scenario was FUD, and why your current one continues to be FUD. Do you want Thames to remain in control of USM? Do you actually think that would be a good thing? Do you accept the Thamesian line that USM professors are lazy whiners? Inquiring minds want to know. Robert Campbell"
Thanks, RC. My thoughts exactly. None of this has come to pass, yet he claims it's "precscient."
quote: Originally posted by: Third Witch " Thanks, RC. My thoughts exactly. None of this has come to pass, yet he claims it's "precscient.""
Agree with him or not (I don't buy it all), I don't think we should treat "walt" like a troll. He/she has never come on the board and acted like "JoJo" or "Son of Bubba" or any of the rest. Claiming he/she commented on own post does that I think.
quote: Originally posted by: Robert Campbell "Here's why I think walt is trying to keep Thames in power: his scenarios consistently leave out any activity by USM faculty or by the press. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that what the faculty and the media do will make a difference. But Thames' followers fervently wish that the faculty would knuckle under and the media would go back to printing the Dear Leader's press releases. Robert Campbell"
Robert, I side with your earliest assumption about walt. He/she is most like an anti-SFT person who is down in the dumps about this whole affair. The posts don't read like an agenda to me, but more like a sadness about it all.
quote: Originally posted by: walt "Many of you may remember a chronology of events that I posted a few weeks back. Today's events concerning Dr. Thames certainly are not a word-for-word match of what I had presented here earlier. My view now is that the IHL may have pulled off a slightly more sophisticated version of what I presented back then. By giving SFT 2 more years now, he has a built in period with which to "make USM [SACS] whole" again. In the legal sense, making someone whole is nothing to cheer or congratulate someone over. In this case, the IHL and Thames' community supporters are prepared to make a hard sell for Thames' act of making USM whole again. That is, if Thames is able to claim some victories in the SACS area over the next 2 years, and if his health is holding up, there will be a major push by the powerbrokers in the community/IHL/legislature to offer him what will then be a second 1-year renewal to continue on as a "change agent." There are two obstacles: (1) his age/health, and (2) SACS. Putting the health issue aside, all of the onus is now on SACS. Are you prepared to do what it takes to get the job done? If so, prepare to have the credit snatched from your clutch by the business community, the legislature and some in the IHL. There are other wildcards in this scenario. Who will be the permanent IHL Commissioner? What home-grown replacements for Thames can be cultivated/harvested in the next 2 years? Who knows the answers to these, or even other questions not posed. "
The more I think about it, the more I think Walt might be right.