July 1:

Bring Dr. Crofts in as Interim President. Bring Dr. Meredith in as Interim Commissioner.
THEN
Bring Dr. Henry back as Acting Provost (at least he knows the lay of the land) -- or some other responsible administratively-adept faculty member.
THEN
Bring in some acting deans
THEN
Start searches for all of the above. I've already heard a strong vote for Griffin to come back as a "transitional" president.

Hey, what would they do if Thames died?

Third Witch has put forward a reasonable plan... except I'm foggy on who Griffin is.

Meanwhile... wouldn't SACS applaud the replacement of incompetent administrators who have failed at reaccreditation, or actively blocked it?

Robert Campbell

PS. Another position that will be hard to fill while Thames hangs on will be Director of Public Relations...

Anselm "Andy" Griffin was provost for a couple of years but then left quickly when Thames became president.

Although he wasn't provost for long, he was a reasonable guy and had the respect of the faculty.

He's now at Georgia Tech: http://www.ptfe.gatech.edu/people/tfeprofile.php?entry=ag183.

It sounds to me like Thames knew that he was going to be fired and did call Klumb to ask for two more years. Thames probably told klumb that if he could have that he would retire. It was an out for the board but I also think that was what the argument was about in the board meeting. Some wanted to let him go now and Klumb argued for the compromise. The other board members tacked the ultimatums on so that if Thames doesn't perform they can let him go immediately.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Not a Good Plan
" Robert- Myron was a good FS, but an awful Provost here -- he certainly developed an anti-faculty rep, and overturned strong department and college tenure and promotion recommendations among other nasty actions (not worth going into here-but those of use who were here then do remember). He has rehabed himself in the FS, but I still wouldn't trust him in a position of power again. Jay is an equally poor Provost--and that is another reason to get the Prez search going ASAP. Canning the deans and replacing them with internal actings would be equally stupid at this point. They are not part of SFTs inner circle and are not his friend. Several dropped a big dime on SFT with Crofts on the record -- and this probably added another layer of dirt that could be used to bury the old man. Further evidence that the deans are on the outs came today with SFT dropping any pretense of gathering input and counsel from the deans by holding weekly cabinet meetings with the academic side alone. This is gone as of today, and the show will include the entire cast of characters in the early meeting (FS Prez, foundation, academic side, and so on). Moreover, finding experienced, senior, internal folks who are willing to step in, sacrifice research for the team, and can hit the ground running would be difficult (any volunteers?). It could end up being much more messy than sticking with the devils you know until a new Prez is in place to manage a wholesale transition such as sacking all the deans (plus it would bring flashbacks of SFTs 7 AM massacre). The only reasonable alternatives are to have either an interim Prez, followed by a straight up Prez search, or start the Prez search ASAP if no reasonable interim is available. Leave it to the next Prez to select his Provost, Deans, and other folks. And it would be sweet if these were up and up searches also (what a novel idea).     "

---

NAGP:

 

I'm intrigued by "Further evidence that the deans are on the outs came today with SFT dropping any pretense of gathering input and counsel from the deans by holding weekly cabinet meetings with the academic side alone. This is gone as of today, and the show will include the entire cast of characters in the early meeting (FS Prez, foundation, academic side, and so on). "

How was this change presented and what were the reasons cited for the chnage? Do you know?

 

 

Whoa, Stephen. We gotta quit that, man. It's like we were typing in unison!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
" NAGP:   I'm intrigued by "Further evidence that the deans are on the outs came today with SFT dropping any pretense of gathering input and counsel from the deans by holding weekly cabinet meetings with the academic side alone. This is gone as of today, and the show will include the entire cast of characters in the early meeting (FS Prez, foundation, academic side, and so on). " How was this change presented and what were the reasons cited for the chnage? Do you know?    "

---

Stephen and Third:

Sorry for tre sloppy writing. Here's what I know. Each week, SFT held a meeting with the deans. This came to pass after they complained big time that SFT could care less what they thought, and that things might go smoother if SFT sort of listened to them and took their input and acted on it (this was right after the G&S and D&A messes). This meeting was separate from larger group meetings that included more diverse groups (what were thought of as a more dog and pony show type meetings by the deans, and a less useful venue for them to lay cards on the table).

This change was presented this AM to the deans, and, as far as I know, no good reason was given.

This is one of those seemingly minor events that speak volumes and could be interpreted in many ways. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: NAGP
" Stephen and Third: Sorry for tre sloppy writing. Here's what I know. Each week, SFT held a meeting with the deans. This came to pass after they complained big time that SFT could care less what they thought, and that things might go smoother if SFT sort of listened to them and took their input and acted on it (this was right after the G&S and D&A messes). This meeting was separate from larger group meetings that included more diverse groups (what were thought of as a more dog and pony show type meetings by the deans, and a less useful venue for them to lay cards on the table). This change was presented this AM to the deans, and, as far as I know, no good reason was given. This is one of those seemingly minor events that speak volumes and could be interpreted in many ways. "

---

Thanks for the explanation. I think I also heard that some of the Deans were meeting with Shelby on their job evals today -- do you have any insight on that one?

I agree with you about the Deans as a body. Whether it was out of conviction, cnage of heart, or the want to get on the right side a number of them did finally step up to the plate at the right time with Crofts. I suspect that over the next two or three years we'll see s number of them move on voluntarily -- I don't think there is nay need for  a mass bloodletting below the VP level.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
"
I don't think there is nay need for  a mass bloodletting below the VP level.
 "

---

I hope this doesn't happen. People have to work together for a long time to come.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
" Thanks for the explanation. I think I also heard that some of the Deans were meeting with Shelby on their job evals today -- do you have any insight on that one? I agree with you about the Deans as a body. Whether it was out of conviction, cnage of heart, or the want to get on the right side a number of them did finally step up to the plate at the right time with Crofts. I suspect that over the next two or three years we'll see s number of them move on voluntarily -- I don't think there is nay need for  a mass bloodletting below the VP level.  "

---

Don't know if they met with Shelby about performance evals. I heard they met with Jay recently about this (interesting story about this that can't be told on the board--but if you're lucky I'll fill you in when I see you on campus). You and Third asked about the PUC. I haven't heard anything about this, but the last one was bizzare, to say the least-might as well have not had a PUC meeting. I do agree that several deans will leave naturally (the ones I know well enought to speak to look relieved, exhausted, but they still seem to have their mitts up).

maybe i can clarify. there has been the early meeting that has been described. FS president, etc. ended about 10:00. then the deans met with ST. lasted until about 12:00. then the deans and others met with the provost until 1 or 1:30.

having the deans meet with ST is interesting--pretty unusual that deans have direct sit down access with the prez on a routine basis--check with your friends at other universities. don't they meet with the provost (or its equivalent)? shouldn't the deans meet with the provost only?!

why meet with the prez--at a point the deans complained to ST that Hudson was not telling them the truth. how do you counteract that--one way, let the deans talk with the prez directly.

so that's where things are or were? not sure of what happened today, but if the deans only interact with the provost i wouldn't be surprised. pretty common at most universities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Ray Folse
" I recently learned from Faculty Senate president David Beckett  that all of this time his meetings with the "cabinet" did not include the deans.  All of this time the deans were not hearing the Senate issues from the Senate's president, but rather would meet in the "Kitchen Cabinet" meeting with SFT after the Senate's president left.  Deans were getting their information filtered through SFT.  If I understand NAGP correctly this is now being corrected by having everyone in the room together.  I consider this good news. Please correct me, NAGP, if I have this wrong.    "

---

Ray-

I don't think that the deans believed much of what SFT had to say after the G-S and D&A fiasco. They were fed a load of BS, and I think several felt royally screwed. I think the deans (at least the ones I know) received and listened to unfiltered info from multiple sources anyway. My take is that this move is not a good thing. It signals that SFT could care less about receiving direct input from the administrative level, as a group, that plays a critical role in the day-to-day affairs of the departments and faculty. It's back to the days before G&S when they were frozen out completely. The meeting that "has everyone in the room together" is in some ways more a dog and pony show, like the last PUC meeting. It may sound nice, but.... The notion that the deans were not allowed to attend the bigger meeting with the FS Prez sounds wrong to me, unless this was a relatively recent change. I can find out. But the bottom line is that the deans, I believe, took this as a signal that SFT could care less about their input, which is not encouraging to me. I don't think SFT's motivation was to improve communication by this move (call me a cynic). Maybe more windowdressing.    

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"maybe i can clarify. there has been the early meeting that has been described. FS president, etc. ended about 10:00. then the deans met with ST. lasted until about 12:00. then the deans and others met with the provost until 1 or 1:30. having the deans meet with ST is interesting--pretty unusual that deans have direct sit down access with the prez on a routine basis--check with your friends at other universities. don't they meet with the provost (or its equivalent)? shouldn't the deans meet with the provost only?! why meet with the prez--at a point the deans complained to ST that Hudson was not telling them the truth. how do you counteract that--one way, let the deans talk with the prez directly. so that's where things are or were? not sure of what happened today, but if the deans only interact with the provost i wouldn't be surprised. pretty common at most universities. "

---

SCM-

True about deans interacting with the Provost at other places, but other places have a Provost who has the authority to manage and is not a puppet of a micromanager. The deans didn't simply complain that TH wasn't telling them the truth--SFT laid various problems (including the claim that TH was lying to them) at the feet of TH. This cut TH's legs off at the knees. At that point, there was no choice -- there was essentially no Provost to talk to. Only at USM.

NAGP--the deans talked and realized that TH was telling some one thing and others something different. in that situation, some went to ST saying we can't trust TH to relay good info. they insisted on direct face time with the prez.