Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Rebuilding After SFT
Post Info TOPIC: Rebuilding After SFT
Cossack

Date:
Rebuilding After SFT
Permalink Closed

As SFT's reign draws to an end during the next two years, there will be a period when positive changes can be attempted. This will be a crucial time for USM. All of the SFT enablers will have left, or scuttled off to the side claiming they were trying to save USM by working with SFT. The heroes and heroines who have fought in the trenches will be exhausted. Yet, there can be no rest because the IHL Board will never admit they were derelict and duplicitous in their actions supporting SFT unless there is a publicized disaster. SACS probation and a report that is critical of the IHL Board for not providing the oversight necessary to avoid probation would likely do it. While it would be pleasant to bask in the "told you so" role, it is more important that Faculty Senate and perhaps the AAUP Chapter have positive suggestions about the search for a new president and what are the pressing needs to shore up the university. The are at least two benefits from taking these actions. One, faculty will be playing a positive role instead of reacting, which would help our image. The second is that it makes it easier for the Board Office to listen to faculty input. Moreover, I do not think we can harp narrowly on faculty governance. I am not trying to minimize its importance, but there are other serious problems to be addressed if USM is to recover. Attention should be given to the lack of fiscal control that exists currently, and the crucial lack of experienced personnel in the administrative structure and also in the staff.

The Board Office may be aware of these problems, but I doubt that they are fully aware of how it is affecting students and faculty. The third issue to put before the Board is the lack of attention and support for students. Several posts have mentioned the pitiful recruiting process in a world of increasing competition for students. The negativity from SACS probation, if it occurs, will make recruiting even harder. My point is that jettisoning SFT will not keep our boat from sinking, although he will not be around to drill more holes in the bottom. It will take a lot of bailing to get USM sailing once more.


__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

Excellent post (as usual), Cossack.  Do you have any specific suggestions beyond the ones already mentioned here?  Thanks.

__________________
Tellin' The Tale

Date:
Permalink Closed

We need to avoid the equivalent of Alabama's Bear Bryant problem: for years no one would seriously be considered as football coach or A.D. unless he played for The Bear or coached under The Bear. We certainly are looking to avoid any ST buddies, but we should not replace the anti-ST with, for example, s/he was a Lucas person. The chair of the presidential search committee and the members of the committee, and anyone considered for an administrative job at any level, should be judged on his or her merits to perform that job. Let's try to avoid partisan litmus tests that will surely be harmful because of those tests inherent one dimensional nature.

__________________
Reconciliation

Date:
Permalink Closed

There is so much misunderstanding and lack of trust between the outside supporters and the "University Community" at USM.  We are going to need some healing on both sides.  The faculty will need to have their voice heard and the financial supporters will need input also.  I have heard some faculty say that their voice should be the only voice IHL hears on who should be the next President.  I have heard foundation supporters say that their contributions will cease due to "an out of control faculty."  Both sides are wrong, but we need to work together for USM.

__________________
Tiny Tim (a.k.a. Voter)

Date:
Permalink Closed

On the thread "Letter to Hattiesburg," Cossack wrote:

“I don't know why I wasted my time trying to find a middle ground. There is none.”

Gracie’s Mother,

You are correct that there is no middle ground in this case. Often there is not a middle ground in that there is not a mutually agreeable solution. If you are having your butt kicked six times a week, the middle ground is getting it kicked three times a week. Your goal is to get it kicked zero times a week. Moreover, there is never a middle ground with SFT, his solution is the only viable solution.

Universities are both solid and fragile. The fragile part is the quality component. You get quality when employees feel motivated to give discretionary effort, effort over and above what is required by their job description. SFT has erased the discretionary effort for most of the USM employees. While faculty have generated the headlines, staff are no happier than faculty. The maintenance employees, clerical employees, and the middle management employees who see that the university machinery works all are going through the motions. They are demoralized as faculty and even more powerless.

Your University is very sick and the prognosis is not good for the future. The most likely outcome is an extended SACS probation and an embarrassment for the IHL Board. The Board may not be embarrassed since they seem to have a high tolerance for embarrassment, but others will see it as an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the opportunity for the IHL Board to remedy the situation has passed. To paraphrase another poster, someone should wake the Board up just before it happens because they have never seen a train wreck.

For those who have loyalty to USM, the future is not bright. USM will not recover for a decade or two, and maybe never. There are forces working against its recovery that are not directly tied to the IHL Board. USM will not be able to go on the market and replace the faculty and staff they have lost because USM perceives the market cost of these people as too high. This has been true in the past, and likely will continue. Compounding the issue is the propensity of USM to go inside for administrators, but only after a nationwide search, wink, wink, wink. The insiders will be those people currently at the University or new hires made over the next 2-3 years. The pool of people to choose from inside is of lesser quality than before SFT. This is important not just for the quality of the candidates, but also the quality of the search committees. The insight and wisdom of a Neil McMillen, Noel Polk, Frank Glamser, or a Gary Stringer are not common and such people have an impact on the hiring process. I mention these four because they are well know on this Board and I know from serving on committees with them the contributions they have made. Other Departments have had equally wise and thoughtful faculty who no longer get their mail at USM.

There are those who think my middle name should be Pessimist because of my propensity to focus on potential train wrecks. I view this situation pessimistically not because it is what I wish to see. I have spent many years at USM and most of my memories are good. It has been a place where I could be productive professionally and teach students who reminded me of myself when I was the first and only one of my family to go to college. It has been rewarding to watch many of them go on to success in business, government, and even into higher education. My expectations before SFT were that things would continue as they had until I was ready to retire or they carried me out.

For those who are prior students and have posted about the situation, let me assure you, the USM you attended is a memory in two ways. There are your personal memories that I hope are positive, and most have posted positive memories of their university. The other memory is historic, it is highly unlikely that USM will return to what it was when you walked the halls. Unfortunately, experience leads me to believe that it will be worse in most ways. I fear that it will become what many others have become, a chronically sick and dysfunctional institution of indifferent faculty and staff. Once this sickness gets into the walls of the university, it becomes the termites that do not go away and cannot be killed. USM is falling rapidly back into the abyss that it had escaped over the past 25 years. It soon will be one the many non descript directional universities that clutter the landscape of this country. These directional universities have one thing in common, you cannot even see WURL CLASS from there.

________________
to which I responded by calling Cossack "The Ghost of Christmas Future." Looks like he sufficiently alarmed himself with his own vision that he is now casting about for some kind of positive moves. Hang tight, there, Cossack, I'm off to buy the big turkey!


__________________
Jean Moulin

Date:
Permalink Closed

"...it is more important that Faculty Senate and perhaps the AAUP Chapter have positive suggestions about the search for a new president and what are the pressing needs to shore up the university...." (Cossack)


Process must precede specific content here.  The first order of business is for the leadership of ALL faculty organizations (in addition to FS and AAUP, I would count Academic Council, Graduate Council and Council of Chairs) to come together and hammer out an agenda of priorities for (a) keeping SFT in check for the duration of his term; (b) looking to the future beyond SFT.  If a level of solidarity and commitment to action can be achieved, there is good reason to be hopeful for USM's future. 



__________________
Reporter

Date:
Permalink Closed

Reconciliation wrote:

...  I have heard some faculty say that their voice should be the only voice IHL hears on who should be the next President. ...

I have a question, Reconciliation.  Did you hear this statement in private conversation or was it in a letter to the editor or something Faculty Senate wrote? I am just curious because I have heard some naive faculty with only experience from a small private liberal arts college make a similar comment.  I'm sure all the faculty leaders realize that input from all parties is both necessary and desirable.  We should educate those who may not understand.   Statements like these may be due to the complete lack of attention the faculty received in the last search.



__________________
ram

Date:
Permalink Closed

Reconciliation wrote:

There is so much misunderstanding and lack of trust between the outside supporters and the "University Community" at USM.  We are going to need some healing on both sides.  The faculty will need to have their voice heard and the financial supporters will need input also.  I have heard some faculty say that their voice should be the only voice IHL hears on who should be the next President.  I have heard foundation supporters say that their contributions will cease due to "an out of control faculty."  Both sides are wrong, but we need to work together for USM.

Isn't there a big difference in what "some faculty" say and what "the faculty" says?  My impression (and I may be wrong) is that "the faculty" speaks through the Faculty Senate.  I am hopeful that the FacSen will not take the "only voice" position you have quoted.


There is no organization of which I am aware through which donors can speak with a single voice. I understand some donors have already stopped giving, but due to the administration, not the faculty.  I expect some foundation supporters will stop giving after SFT leaves.  As many others have pointed out, fund raising is a major responsibility of a university president.  The new president will have to find a way to develop more contributors as well as maintain current relationships.


But re-reading your post, I think your comments were directed at the need for both foundation supporters and faculty to provide input to the presidential selection process.  I totally agree with that position.  But I suspect it will take a lot more than participation in the selection process to overcome the misunderstanding and lack of trust you mention and lead both sides to eventual healing.


SFT stands at the center. He could start the reconciliation process right now by convening some sort of formal dialog between the community and the faculty.  Pigs could fly. (Only he can do that.  His supporters cannot, because their participation in any other independent reconciliation initiative would be considered traitorous.)  Baring that, he personally will remain the lightning rod, the shibboleth, the issue that will divide rather than unite the (at least) two communities.


If I am right, there will be no chance at reconciliation until SFT is no longer an issue.  My guess is: that means two to three years into the next president's term.



__________________
Arnold

Date:
Permalink Closed

I think it is crucial that the new president be personally interested in fund raising (not just expecting the faculty to generate grants) and work to have excellent communications with alumni and donors and potential donors.

__________________
Reconciliation

Date:
Permalink Closed

My sources are veteran, tenured faculty that I have known for years in the community.  The next search will have to have peace between all parties before it begins.  I talked with an IHl board member and she said that USM's Foundation will need to supplement the President's salary if we intend to get a quality candidate.  If we continue to fight each other we will again get the crumbs from the table.

__________________
JoJo

Date:
Permalink Closed

Recon, don"t you see that all the "Academy types" want is control.  Quality does not matter. 

__________________
now that Bozz Scaggs song....

Date:
Permalink Closed

JoJo wrote:

Recon, don"t you see that all the "Academy types" want is control.  Quality does not matter. 
is playin in my head again.....

__________________
Doctor, the boss wants to see you. Put that scalpel down. The patient may bleed but he won't die

Date:
Permalink Closed

JoJo wrote:

Recon, don"t you see that all the "Academy types" want is control.. 
The only kind of control we want is the kind of control a surgeon wants when performing delicate surgery in a hospital operating room.

__________________
Way to go, Slick

Date:
Permalink Closed

JoJo wrote:

Recon, don"t you see that all the "Academy types" want is control.  Quality does not matter. 
You must be kidding.  This administration doesn't know the meaning of the word. 

__________________
Troll Zapper

Date:
Permalink Closed

A gentle reminder: JoJo is not on a leash. It's probably best not to respond to him lest he walk over and bite you on the ***

__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

Troll Zapper wrote:

A gentle reminder: JoJo is not on a leash. It's probably best not to respond to him lest he walk over and bite you on the ***
I agree.  I normally try to discuss almost anything with almost anybody, but I have given up on JoJo and urge others to just ignore him.

__________________
jacobin

Date:
Permalink Closed

Reconciliation wrote:
I talked with an IHl board member and she said that USM's Foundation will need to supplement the President's salary if we intend to get a quality candidate.  If we continue to fight each other we will again get the crumbs from the table.
A major difficulty is that IHL has zero credibility.  Either in order to advance other institutions in the state; an inability to admit making a mistake; or sheer stupidity they have repeatedly refused to remove a president that was destroying a decent institution.  If these people had any sense of shame or guilt they would resign as a group to allow the appointment of people with some degree of sense and integrity.  Others have repeatedly said that the problem is IHL.  I wish all who work with this group the best of luck.  You'll need it.

__________________
The Company Store

Date:
Permalink Closed

jacobin wrote:

IHL has zero credibility .......... If these people had any sense of shame or guilt they would resign as a group......
It is not uncommon that the officer or officers entrusted to govern a corporation resign when that corporation falls into bankruptcy. I wonder if that principle is ever applicable to a university run like a corporation.


__________________
Benjamin Graham

Date:
Permalink Closed

The Company Store wrote:

jacobin wrote: IHL has zero credibility .......... If these people had any sense of shame or guilt they would resign as a group...... It is not uncommon that the officer or officers entrusted to govern a corporation resign when that corporation falls into bankruptcy. I wonder if that principle is ever applicable to a university run like a corporation.

The academic equivalent of bankruptcy is loss of accreditation.  This won't happen.  USM is like a company that is maximizing short run cash flow at the expense of long-run revenues.  A university's greatest asset is the people.  As the faculty and staff flee, there will eventually be a drop in funded research.  Fund raising has probably plummeted and will decline further as who gives money to a degree mill?  With favorable demographics and some growth at the coast, USMs total enrollment may just languish.  The current surplus cash flow is going into paving, light poles, and airplanes.  This brief burst of mismanagement via personal aggrandizement has, and will, be costly beyond estimation both to the institution and ultimately the people of the state. 



__________________
stephen judd

Date:
Permalink Closed

Reporter wrote:

Reconciliation wrote: ...  I have heard some faculty say that their voice should be the only voice IHL hears on who should be the next President. ... I have a question, Reconciliation.  Did you hear this statement in private conversation or was it in a letter to the editor or something Faculty Senate wrote? I am just curious because I have heard some naive faculty with only experience from a small private liberal arts college make a similar comment.  I'm sure all the faculty leaders realize that input from all parties is both necessary and desirable.  We should educate those who may not understand.   Statements like these may be due to the complete lack of attention the faculty received in the last search.
Right. It is why we call it "shared governance."

__________________
Through the eyes of a child

Date:
Permalink Closed

At the risk of getting laughed off the website for quoting from my kids' video, National Treasure, rather than from any memory of actually studying the Constitution in US History, here is an inspirational exchange:


"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


"People don't speak like that anymore."


"What does it mean?"


"When there is something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action."



__________________
Canterbury Tales

Date:
Permalink Closed


Through the eyes of a child wrote:




"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


"People don't speak like that anymore."


"What does it mean?"



You would probably not be a happy camper in a class in Chaucer. The Olde English might not be to your liking.

__________________
LIttle old lady

Date:
Permalink Closed

CT, she's quoting from a childrens' movie. I think the point was well made.

__________________
Through the eyes of a child

Date:
Permalink Closed

Au contraire CT, where else would I have learned that the gap between my front teeth was sexy?


Thanks LoL!



__________________
Cossack

Date:
Permalink Closed

From: USM Sympathizer

“Do you have any specific suggestions beyond the ones already mentioned here?”

I will confess that I do not have a vision of how to proceed other than a general framework. There are many unknowns in this situation, the IHL Board, the power of the Board office, and the potential candidates for president to name a few. Upon reflecting on this further, however, I think it is important that faculty and faculty representatives approach the next two years as preparing for the new president rather than fighting SFT directly. That is why I think that the Faculty Senate and other bodies should publicly focus on the changeover. One, it will be a positive forward-looking move, and two it will allow us to put our energy into acting rather than reacting. If nothing else, it will probably irritate SFT to no end because it tends to make him irrelevant.


__________________
Pollyanna

Date:
Permalink Closed

Cossack wrote:

 I think it is important that faculty and faculty representatives approach the next two years as preparing for the new president rather than fighting SFT directly. That is why I think that the Faculty Senate and other bodies should publicly focus on the changeover. One, it will be a positive forward-looking move, and two it will allow us to put our energy into acting rather than reacting. If nothing else, it will probably irritate SFT to no end because it tends to make him irrelevant.
This is already happening--not so publicly yet, but quietly, in small groups all over campus.  SFT really is irrelevant now.  There is no benefit for anyone to align with him now--dean, vp, dept. chair, provost, assoc. provost--all know that he has two years, tops. He has been neutered..... And he is so outside the academic mainstream that anyone who aligns with him will be reviled by faculty post-SFT.  I don't see how he will be able to accomplish anything significant during the next two years.  All deans, department chairs, faculty, whoever, have to do is to present a solid front and JUST SAY NO.  And with a +90% (by any measure) negative approval rating, that shouldn't be too difficult to do.  

__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

Arnold wrote:

I think it is crucial that the new president be personally interested in fund raising (not just expecting the faculty to generate grants) and work to have excellent communications with alumni and donors and potential donors.

Arnold,


This is a key part of being a university president everywhere else.


It's a sign of how dysfunctional USM has become that the president's role in donor relations even needs mentioning.


Robert Campbell



__________________
View from a Distance

Date:
Permalink Closed

An excellent thread! When the hard-headed realists (pessimists) are ready to look to the future, there IS a future.



__________________
Arnold

Date:
Permalink Closed


Robert Campbell wrote:
Arnold wrote:
I think it is crucial that the new president be personally interested in fund raising (not just expecting the faculty to generate grants) and work to have excellent communications with alumni and donors and potential donors.

Arnold,
This is a key part of being a university president everywhere else.
It's a sign of how dysfunctional USM has become that the president's role in donor relations even needs mentioning.
Robert Campbell


Well yes. With SFT around, one usually needs to state the obvious.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
USM Forum -- Message Board -> AAUP-USM MESSAGE BOARD -> Rebuilding After SFT
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard