CL editorial, 5-23-05 - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 23, 2005

CL editorial, 5-23-05

Date: May 23, 2005

Nuff said.

Date: May 23, 2005

The editorial states: "... Thames' detractors can now focus their attention not on attacking the university administration, but on doing their jobs."

What does this suggest to you? Faculty should not make public the bad decisions of this administration? Deans should just follow orders even if the orders threaten accreditation? Do the editors really think pointing out these mistakes is "attacking" the university administration? Do the editors really believe faculty rather do this than teaching and scholarly work?

Date: May 23, 2005

Just a few thoughts about SFT's "decision" to step down. Anyone who knows Shelby realizes its all about power...his power.

1.The college board meeting two weeks ago about Shelby's future as Prez, could have resulted in not only no contract renewal but termination...but in the interest of allowing SFT to save face(and avoiding further bad publicity)the decision was made allow him to serve out the four years of his contract.

2.Shelby probably still has enough political capital to make it appear even better for his tenure to come up with the latest piece of pr, but with the understanding he will still go back to his first "love" next spring(here comes more time with my family, health issues, etc excuses for stepping down and then there is always we have accomplished all we set out to do). Always keep in mind the college board is more about public relations and politics than higher education.

3.The IHL is made up of business people not educators as a rule. The Shelby story has taken on its own life. There is only so much support you can give an employee before you have to make a decision and it appears the decision was made 2 weeks ago. Shelby did muster enough support after the meeting to save face somewhat or least in his mind....where is Lisa when you need her?

4.The current news articles regarding Shelby's decision are probably good, in that if SFT does stump his toe and these same news agencies have to report it then it will be very east for them to ask for his immediate resignation.

It is in everyones best interest to continue to monitor all actions of the current adminstration, even though I would guess the inner circle will start jumping fairly soon.

Date: May 23, 2005

You'd think that people who support USM would say "thank you" to those who have worked so hard to identify, expose, correct, and prevent further intentional or inept missteps by this administration.

Date: May 23, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Ungracious
"You'd think that people who support USM would say "thank you" to those who have worked so hard to identify, expose, correct, and prevent further intentional or inept missteps by this administration."

Here's a pat on the head, happy now?

Date: May 23, 2005

It is in everyones best interest to continue to monitor all actions of the current adminstration, even though I would guess the inner circle will start jumping fairly soon.

And that may end the ball game. Will anyone step up to take these vacant positions? I think not. Fait accompli.

Date: May 23, 2005

The inability to understand higher education is characteristic of this backward state. I'm afraid it will never change.

Date: May 23, 2005

This is a deeply disappointing editorial. It displays colossal ignorance of Thames' administrative model.

That said, Thames launched an administrative reorganization of USM that was innovative and businesslike. Modern private sector corporations are doing the same things — reducing administrative bureaucracy.

Thames, of course, did no such thing. He conducted a purge--pretended that it saved significant amounts of money--and used the actual proceeds to pump up administration. The administrative cuts that he has made since then have generally been made under compulsion.

Resistance to change on university campuses by faculty members is legendary. The accountability for the high costs of higher education is usually not with faculty members, but with administrators. Thames understands that.

Here we have an editorial writer who, we can be sure, is widely viewed as politically savvy--and he or she fails to recognize the number one motive of administrators like Thames: to dodge accountability whenever possible.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 23, 2005

"Thames, of course, did no such thing. He conducted a purge--pretended that it saved significant amounts of money--and used the actual proceeds to pump up administration. The administrative cuts that he has made since then have generally been made under compulsion."

You are absolutely right about this, Robert. There are two motives in play here. First, he sold himself to folks as the economic saviour of the university. He had to deliver something. But second, and more interesting because of what it once again shows about Thames, he was able to get some revenge on folks he despised.

Date: May 23, 2005

psych 101--you're right on the money. SFT's world extends all the way to the distant reaches of Lamar county, and that's it. A small man who lives in a fantasy world nurturing resentments from years past, while inflicting great pain on others and underming a public institution for his petty resentments.

Date: May 23, 2005

A strong rebuttal letter, signed by a significant number of faculty, would seem to be in order. Even better, a paid ad so that they can't edit it "for length" or whatever.

After all the strong articles in the CL, this is a shock. Wonder who got to them?

Date: May 24, 2005

I agree with Third Witch's suggestion about a rebuttal letter in the C-L.

Anyone who wants to know whether there can be such a thing as an "economic development university" needs only to consult the history of USM under Shelby Thames.

The answer is a definitive no. You can't sustain a comprehensive university, let alone a research university, on research grants and contracts, congressional pork, and meager tuition income diverted from the units that generated it to the central administration and the "economic development" operations.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 24, 2005

I sent them a rebuttal letter yesterday, but more -- especially ones with multiple signers -- would help. Then we'll just have to wait and see whether any get printed!

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Evans
"I sent them a rebuttal letter yesterday, but more -- especially ones with multiple signers -- would help. Then we'll just have to wait and see whether any get printed!"

Good job Robert -- glad to see you picking up some of the slack a few of us have been giving lately. If I can ever get out from under being a program director and dealing with all this SACs stuff I'll join you more.

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" Good job Robert -- glad to see you picking up some of the slack a few of us have been giving lately. If I can ever get out from under being a program director and dealing with all this SACs stuff I'll join you more. "

Thanks for the kind words. I only wish I could help more; I admire you all tremendously. Keep up the good fight!

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Evans
"I sent them a rebuttal letter yesterday, but more -- especially ones with multiple signers -- would help. Then we'll just have to wait and see whether any get printed!"

The H-A did not print the letter with multiple signers from this board. I think they were too lazy to verify all the signatures.

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: frustrated
"

The H-A did not print the letter with multiple signers from this board. I think they were too lazy to verify all the signatures."

You got to be kidding. I wondered what happened. Is this the initiative that Truth collected signature for? I never saw it, but I was out of the country for a bit.

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Far away alum
"

You got to be kidding. I wondered what happened. Is this the initiative that Truth collected signature for? I never saw it, but I was out of the country for a bit."

Yes, it was sent to the H-A. If it was printed, I never saw it. I know they never called me to verify my signature.

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Evans
"I sent them a rebuttal letter yesterday, but more -- especially ones with multiple signers -- would help. Then we'll just have to wait and see whether any get printed!"

So did I. They haven't called me yet.

Date: May 24, 2005

I know we sent it (after collecting lots of info from people...thanks to all who participated...you know who you are!), but I've never seen it either. In fact, I believe it was submitted twice for good measure.

Truth

Date: May 24, 2005

This is pretty hard to believe. Perhaps its time to resubmit with whatever editing it needs for the new situation. And perhaps everyone who signed should individually contact the HA with approval before it is even submitted. Tell them to keep a list!

Date: May 24, 2005

Let's send it again - heck, let's send it to all of MS papers. Somebody will print it. The Indepenent? Petal News? CL? Greenville, McComb, Yazoo City Tupelo, Oxford, Starkville

Date: May 24, 2005

I'd been wondering whatever happened to that omnibus letter; now I know. Was it submitted electronically or in hard copy? They might find a hard copy, with signatures, addresses, and an explicit statement of permission to publish, easier to deal with, since I suspect that they were just unwilling to call everyone (which is kind of sad).

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"I'd been wondering whatever happened to that omnibus letter; now I know. Was it submitted electronically or in hard copy? They might find a hard copy, with signatures, addresses, and an explicit statement of permission to publish, easier to deal with, since I suspect that they were just unwilling to call everyone (which is kind of sad)."

It was submitted electronically (I believe). I collected the info, and someone else did the submitting.

If we were to resubmit, I believe the letter would have to be edited since it referred to the pre-May 19 situation at USM. Not that it couldn't be done, but I would want all of the signers to approve the new version (i.e. it would take a little while to contact everyone).

Truth

Date: May 24, 2005

Truth,

For all you do, this bud's for you:

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Truth, For all you do, this bud's for you: "

Awww, that was sweet!

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Truth,
For all you do, this bud's for you:
"

Thanks, USM Sympathizer! I needed that this afternoon!

Date: May 24, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Itsworthreading
"Let's send it again - heck, let's send it to all of MS papers. Somebody will print it. The Indepenent? Petal News? CL? Greenville, McComb, Yazoo City Tupelo, Oxford, Starkville"

You left the Greenwood newspaper off the list. Be sure to include them. They are the ones that published today's fine editorial.

Date: May 24, 2005

I just sent the following letter to the Clarion-Ledger. By now they should have gotten 3 or 4 criticizing their editorial--maybe more. Let's hope one gets published.

Robert Campbell

********************

Monday’s editorial on the IHL Board’s decision to end Shelby Thames’ term in office in May 2007 misses the significance of his failed presidency.

When Thames fired 9 deans at the University of Southern Mississippi and replaced them with 5, he was not being "innovative and businesslike." He was conducting a purge. Nor was he "reducing administrative bureaucracy." His reorganization saved less than $800,000 per year in administrative spending, not the $1.8 million that he has claimed. And Thames spent the savings on new administrators, such as a Director of Risk Management and a Chief Operating Officer.

Thames has not come up with new and better ways to finance higher education in Mississippi. In trying to make USM into an "economic development university," he has proven that there is no such thing. A university cannot be run on research contracts and pork-barrel appropriations for a couple of favored units, while the remaining academic programs are squeezed dry and their tuition income is diverted to the favored units or to the central administration. The programs that have been squeezed quickly lose their capacity to serve their students or to compete in the research arena.

It is widely assumed that professors are unaccountable and university administrators are accountable. But Shelby Thames has yet to accept responsibility for a single false statement or harmful policy. Those who look to unaccountable administrators to make quality higher education affordable are bound to be disappointed.