Myron's PUC Report - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 9, 2005

RE: Myron's PUC Report

Date: Jun 9, 2005

Gulf Coast wrote:

Remember, the faculty at Clemson wanted Horace Flemming to be President in the 90's and the BOT was smart enough to see through him. The faculty at USM was about 99% ready for a no confidence vote on HF before IHL canned him. Why are you listening to a Clemson failure?

All right, GCB, I thought you were fronting for the USM administration. But comments like this make you out as a common troll. You need to do a little more research if you want anyone here to believe you.

During the presidential search of 1994-1995, Horace Fleming was perceived by the senior colleagues I talked to as the token inside candidate (he was actually at Mercer by then, but had spent most of his career at Clemson). There was little enthusiasm for him, as far as I could tell, and much concern that he would be a weak leader, than he would be afraid to challenge entrenched power brokers at the university, etc. At the time, most Clemson faculty weren't thrilled with any of the four finalists. It is true that no one on the faculty much liked Deno Curris, whom the Board eventually picked, but Curris was a Nixonian figure who turned out to be a pretty lousy president (he refused to face the fact that the state legislature was never going to substantially increase our direct appropriations). The Board was late in getting around to facing the facts, but it wised up before Curris did, and within three years it was looking for a way to ease him out of the job.

As for whether the USM faculty was ready to get rid of Fleming in 2001, there are plenty of folks on this board who can give an authoritative answer. My impression has been that the athletic boosters and the local kingmakers were the ones who got rid of Fleming, not the faculty.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 9, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

All right, GCB, I thought you were fronting for the USM administration. But comments like this make you out as a common troll.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive? Gloves are off and the dome team has been given approval to use all means available.

Date: Jun 9, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

As for whether the USM faculty was ready to get rid of Fleming in 2001, there are plenty of folks on this board who can give an authoritative answer. My impression has been that the athletic boosters and the local kingmakers were the ones who got rid of Fleming, not the faculty. Robert Campbell

Robert: This is true. The faculty did not try to get rid of Fleming. I really get tired of this rumor that keeps being repeated as truth. It just simply is not true.

Those who eventually "got rid of Fleming" were the same ones that put Thames in power.

Date: Jun 9, 2005

And we should remember and keep remembering and keep reminding that HF had too much class and pride to take the one year extension.

Date: Jun 9, 2005

Magnolia wrote:

The faculty did not try to get rid of Fleming. I really get tired of this rumor that keeps being repeated as truth. It just simply is not true.

I was at USM during the entire period of Fleming's administration. I never once heard any talk of a no confidence vote. I did hear some complaints about his putting resources into technology such as updating our primitive computer system, but not a thing about no confidence. Regarding those who did wish that Fleming would leave,

I am reminded of the old saying "Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it."