CL: Harsh Words at President's Council Meeting - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 11, 2005

CL: Harsh Words at President's Council Meeting

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Welcome back, Scotter--we're down to one "t" in Scot now; but the spoof's the same.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

I cannot imagine a university president admitting that he was opposed to the fundamental concept of "shared governance". With that utterance he stated, in public, that he believed in a campus dictatorship. How can this man continue to be so utterly stupid?! Retaliation is different from coming after someone? If he's going to use his own dictionary at every turn it'd be nice for him to share his copy with folks. American Heritage may be interested in publishing it...

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Bystander, It's a joke. Someone praticing "creative writing".

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Here's is a corrected version:

Thames, Faculty Debate in Council Meeting

by Scot Jameson, Clarion-Ledger Staff

After a brief discussion of Summer enrollment, Wednesday's meeting of the USM President's Council, which began at 7:00 am, quickly spiraled into a "war of words" about Thames' intentions as USM's president over the next 2 years. The debate began when faculty members questionned Thames about campus rumors that he might take retaliatory actions against faculty and staff who have opposed his presidency since May of 2002.

Thames responded by stating that he had no intentions of retaliating against anyone on campus, and that he 'did not have a retaliatory bone in his body." When pressed further, Thames stated that he makes no promise not to "come after" anyone he suspects was involved in past campus turmoil, such as what he viewed was the "improper investigation" of Angeline Dvorak, former USM Vice President for Research. "That [investigation] was wrong. I would also 'come after' anyone who does something like that during the next 2 years," Thames indicated.

At that point, both staff and faculty in attendance at Wednesday's meeting pressed Thames for clarification between the two terms, "retaliation" and "come after." "It's a matter of 'intent,'" Thames stated. "Retaliation would involve malice of some sort. The other ["come after"] does not, and would be completely justified," Thames said.

Several faculty members asked Thames if he felt the IHL Board had either "retaliated" against him, or had "come after" him with its decision to terminate his presidency at USM in May of 2007. Thames indicated that the decision was not made by anyone in a malicious way, nor was it the result of actions that Thames had taken against the board. "There is also another important, overriding element in the story of my resignation you all are missing," Thames indicated. "I am resigning based on my own decision to serve two more years and return to my lab. If it's my choice, then what the IHL did cannot be considered 'retaliation' or 'coming after' [me]. That's the rule" Thames said.

Faculty members in the College of Arts and Letters then asked Thames exactly what it was that former USM Professors Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer had done that was improper. Thames was reluctant to discuss the former professors, but did point out that they hadn't "come after" Dr. Dvorak. What they [Glamser and Stringer] had done was "retaliation." "That's one reason I am so against this idea of 'shared governance,'" Thames then stated. "To me, all it does is put faculty in a good position to 'retaliate' against me and my management staff," Thames stated.

Faculty members took issue with Thames' characterization of what they called the "Glamser-Stringer affair." Several reminded Thames that, if Glamser and Stringer had actually "retaliated" against either him [Thames] or Dvorak, that former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Reuben Anderson could have "come after" the two former USM professors in the closed hearing held in the Spring of 2004. Instead, Anderson halted the hearing, and Glamser and Stinger were awarded their full salary and benefits for two years in a settlement. Some pointed out that since the two professors actually "agreed to" award that was ultimately approved by Anderson, the argument that they "retaliated" against Thames was wrong. "We were simply using his own terminology, his own 'rule,'" stated a USM staff member in an interview after the meeting.

Thames left the meeting at 8:30 am. His departure was followed by a brief discussion of of the terms "retaliation" and "come after" by the remaining faculty and staff. The Council meeting then concluded at 9:00am.

The USM President's Council was formed by President Thames over one year ago in order to foster clearer lines of communication between the administration and the institution's faculty and staff.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

"reader", you should definitely label your stuff as satire, because then LVN would know for sure that it's satire. Also, it would help those in the reading audience discern what is real and what is fiction without having to do any work on their own.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

One more try (having a rough time of it today):

Thames, Faculty Debate in Council Meeting

by Scot Jameson, Clarion-Ledger Staff

After a brief discussion of Summer enrollment, Wednesday's meeting of the USM President's Council, which began at 7:00 am, quickly spiraled into a "war of words" about Thames' intentions as USM's president over the next 2 years. The debate began when faculty members questionned Thames about campus rumors that he might take retaliatory actions against faculty and staff who have opposed his presidency since May of 2002.

Thames responded by stating that he had no intentions of retaliating against anyone on campus, and that he 'did not have a retaliatory bone in his body." When pressed further, Thames stated that he makes no promise not to "come after" anyone he suspects was involved in past campus turmoil, such as what he viewed was the "improper investigation" of Angeline Dvorak, former USM Vice President for Research. "That [investigation] was wrong. I would also 'come after' anyone who does something like that during the next 2 years," Thames indicated.

At that point, both staff and faculty in attendance at Wednesday's meeting pressed Thames for clarification between the two terms, "retaliation" and "come after." "It's a matter of 'intent,'" Thames stated. "Retaliation would involve malice of some sort. The other ["come after"] does not, and would be completely justified," Thames said.

Several faculty members asked Thames if he felt the IHL Board had either "retaliated" against him, or had "come after" him with its decision to terminate his presidency at USM in May of 2007. Thames indicated that the decision was not made by anyone in a malicious way, nor was it the result of actions that Thames had taken against the board. "There is also another important, overriding element in the story of my resignation you all are missing," Thames indicated. "I am resigning based on my own decision to serve two more years and return to my lab. If it's my choice, then what the IHL did cannot be considered 'retaliation' or 'coming after' [me]. That's the rule" Thames said.

Faculty members in the College of Arts and Letters then asked Thames exactly what it was that former USM Professors Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer had done that was improper. Thames was reluctant to discuss the former professors, but did point out that they hadn't "come after" Dr. Dvorak. What they [Glamser and Stringer] had done was "retaliation." "That's one reason I am so against this idea of 'shared governance,'" Thames then stated. "To me, all it does is put faculty in a good position to 'retaliate' against me and my management staff," Thames stated.

Faculty members took issue with Thames' characterization of what they called the "Glamser-Stringer affair." Several reminded Thames that, if Glamser and Stringer had actually "retaliated" against either him [Thames] or Dvorak, that former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Reuben Anderson could have "come after" the two former USM professors in the closed hearing held in the Spring of 2004. Instead, Anderson halted the hearing, and Glamser and Stinger were awarded their full salary and benefits for two years in a settlement. Some pointed out that since the two professors were actually awarded such a lucrative deal, as brokered by Justice Anderson, the argument that they "retaliated" against Thames was wrong. "We were simply using his own terminology, his own 'rule,'" stated a USM staff member in an interview after the meeting.

Thames left the meeting at 8:30 am. His departure was followed by a brief discussion of of the terms "retaliation" and "come after" by the remaining faculty and staff. The Council meeting then concluded at 9:00am.

The USM President's Council was formed by President Thames over one year ago in order to foster clearer lines of communication between the administration and the institution's faculty and staff.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Last shot (at fixing this) and I'm going to bed. This one is hard enough without a sinus infection:

Thames, Faculty Debate in Council Meeting

by Scot Jameson, Clarion-Ledger Staff

After a brief discussion of Summer enrollment, Wednesday's meeting of the USM President's Council, which began at 7:00 am, quickly spiraled into a "war of words" about Thames' intentions as USM's president over the next 2 years. The debate began when faculty members questionned Thames about campus rumors that he might take retaliatory actions against faculty and staff who have opposed his presidency since May of 2002.

Thames responded by stating that he had no intentions of retaliating against anyone on campus, and that he 'did not have a retaliatory bone in his body." When pressed further, Thames stated that he makes no promise not to "come after" anyone he suspects was involved in past campus turmoil, such as what he viewed was the "improper investigation" of Angeline Dvorak, former USM Vice President for Research. "That [investigation] was wrong. I would also 'come after' anyone who does something like that during the next 2 years," Thames indicated.

At that point, both staff and faculty in attendance at Wednesday's meeting pressed Thames for clarification between the two terms, "retaliation" and "come after." "It's a matter of 'intent,'" Thames stated. "Retaliation would involve malice of some sort. The other ["come after"] does not, and would be completely justified," Thames said.

Several faculty members asked Thames if he felt the IHL Board had either "retaliated" against him, or had "come after" him with its decision to terminate his presidency at USM in May of 2007. Thames indicated that the decision was not made by anyone in a malicious way, nor was it the result of actions that Thames had taken against the board. "There is also another important, overriding element in the story of my resignation you all are missing," Thames indicated. "I am resigning based on my own decision to serve two more years and return to my lab. If it's my choice, then what the IHL did cannot be considered 'retaliation' or 'coming after' [me]. That's the rule" Thames said.

Faculty members in the College of Arts and Letters then asked Thames exactly what it was that former USM Professors Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer had done that was improper. Thames was reluctant to discuss the former professors, but did point out that they hadn't "come after" Dr. Dvorak. What they [Glamser and Stringer] had done was "retaliation." "That's one reason I am so against this idea of 'shared governance,'" Thames then stated. "To me, all it does is put faculty in a good position to 'retaliate' against me and my management staff," Thames stated.

Faculty members took issue with Thames' characterization of what they called the "Glamser-Stringer affair." Several reminded Thames that, if Glamser and Stringer had actually "retaliated" against either him [Thames] or Dvorak, that former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Reuben Anderson could have "come after" the two former USM professors in the closed hearing held in the Spring of 2004. Instead, Anderson halted the hearing, and Glamser and Stinger were awarded their full salary and benefits for two years in a settlement. Some pointed out that since the two professors were actually awarded such a lucrative deal --- brokered by Justice Anderson and agreed to by the two professors --- the argument that Glamser and Stringer "retaliated" against Thames was wrong. "We were simply using his own terminology, his own 'rule,'" stated a USM staff member in an interview after the meeting.

Thames left the meeting at 8:30 am. His departure was followed by a brief discussion of of the terms "retaliation" and "come after" by the remaining faculty and staff. The Council meeting then concluded at 9:00am.

The USM President's Council was formed by President Thames over one year ago in order to foster clearer lines of communication between the administration and the institution's faculty and staff.

Date: Jun 11, 2005

Chicken Little wrote:

"reader", you should definitely label your stuff as satire, because then LVN would know for sure that it's satire. Also, it would help those in the reading audience discern what is real and what is fiction without having to do any work on their own.

I'm not sure how I got targeted on this issue, since I'm certainly not the only person to raise a concern, but FWIW I will not make any further comments. I'm very busy dumbing down my essay on the concept of magnanimity in some of C.S. Lewis's fiction. I talk about Aristotle and Spenser, and that might make people have to work on their own. God forbid.
PS to Chicken Little. The last serious work I did on satire was Margaret Doody's graduate seminar at Vanderbilt. (However, she's now at Notre Dame.) I guess that was so long ago I forgot what I learned. You have a nice day.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

Sorry for being an idiot. I'm out in Bugtussle and we don't get the Clarion Ledger. Sometimes I expect satire on the board and sometimes I expect news. When something is attributed to a newspaper, I expect that it's the fact. I guess my years in journalism school didn't prepare me for this. But then again, heck, Thames has said so many idiotic things to reporters that I wouldn't put anything past him. I'm just sorry that I'm not as saavy as all of you. I'll take my doctorate and slip back under my rock.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

interested bystander wrote:

"Sorry for being an idiot. ... Sometimes I expect satire on the board and sometimes I expect news. When something is attributed to a newspaper, I expect that it's the fact. ... Thames has said so many idiotic things to reporters that I wouldn't put anything past him."

bystander--

You're not the first to be fooled. BTW, posting provocative information of dubious provenance is a tradition. If I recall, the term "idot" was developed on the old FS board in a thread of satire that was not easily identified.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

interested bystander wrote:

Sorry for being an idiot. I'm out in Bugtussle and we don't get the Clarion Ledger. Sometimes I expect satire on the board and sometimes I expect news. When something is attributed to a newspaper, I expect that it's the fact. I guess my years in journalism school didn't prepare me for this. But then again, heck, Thames has said so many idiotic things to reporters that I wouldn't put anything past him. I'm just sorry that I'm not as saavy as all of you. I'll take my doctorate and slip back under my rock.

I'm with you "bystander". I'm a professional who monitors this board and sends NEWS to colleagues in this and other states. I go mostly from the headlines and don't have the time to read the whole article until later in the day, lunch hour or evening.

I have on occasion passed along bogus information from this board because someone wanted to practice their creative writing skills. Others passed on this information and eventually SFT supporters got it and used it as evidence that the AAUP board posted lies.

We lost that fight, so now I never pass anything on from a newspaper article unless I have the link to copy the article from the site. In general articles are copyrighted so if it is posted here instead of the link it's probably bogus.

So while they may be entertaining posts, I don't see how they help our cause. In war there are always people who goof-off and cause damage to their side.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

Quit your whining, News Passer. It's hot enough in here already without you spewing hot air.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

Gas Passer wrote:

Quit your whining, News Passer. It's hot enough in here already without you spewing hot air.

Who's whining? I related facts as they happened to me and others. Just passing information on so others can judge the impact of their actions and evaluate the worth of their efforts.

It seems to me you are the one whining about the heat.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

News Passer wrote:

Who's whining?

I didn't view your comments as whining. You were merely pointing out something we need to know. I personally welcome the humor on the board, but I do see your point.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

News Passer's Sympathizer wrote:

News Passer wrote: Who's whining? I didn't view your comments as whining. You were merely pointing out something we need to know. I personally welcome the humor on the board, but I do see your point.

Thank you for the kind words and understanding. I also enjoy the humor, but wanted to relate my story because this particular form of humor can and has damaged our cause. If we feel that the battle is won and it's no longer important that we inform the public and colleagues elsewhere (especially ones who don't get the H.A.), then there is no reason for me to pass along the news so quickly. I will reevaluate my actions on this issue.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

The USM administration has been a closed society in terms of communication as long as I can remember. Closed communication harbors rumors and unfounded speculation.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

News Passer wrote:

I also enjoy the humor, but wanted to relate my story because this particular form of humor can and has damaged our cause. If we feel that the battle is won and it's no longer important that we inform the public and colleagues elsewhere (especially ones who don't get the H.A.), then there is no reason for me to pass along the news so quickly.

I have a suggestion that might solve the problem you identified. The terms "troll alert" and "metaphor alert" have become common household terms on this message board. I propose that we use the term "satire alert" for tongue-in-cheek posts that appear, on the surface, to be serious. The humor would be preserved, as well as the journalistic integrity.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

A modest proposal wrote:

News Passer wrote: I also enjoy the humor, but wanted to relate my story because this particular form of humor can and has damaged our cause. If we feel that the battle is won and it's no longer important that we inform the public and colleagues elsewhere (especially ones who don't get the H.A.), then there is no reason for me to pass along the news so quickly. I have a suggestion that might solve the problem you identified. The terms "troll alert" and "metaphor alert" have become common household terms on this message board. I propose that we use the term "satire alert" for tongue-in-cheek posts that appear, on the surface, to be serious. The humor would be preserved, as well as the journalistic integrity.

Excellent idea. It would be great if the poster used the name "Satire Alert". Thanks.

Date: Jun 13, 2005

LVN wrote:

I'm very busy dumbing down my essay on the concept of magnanimity in some of C.S. Lewis's fiction. I talk about Aristotle and Spenser....

You mean Spenser, as in the Boston private eye novels by Dr. Robert B. Parker, and the great TV series starring the late Robert Urich? Man, that's some good stuff, the best since Philip Marlowe. Or was it Christoper Marlowe? Whatever.

Date: Jun 14, 2005

Spenser for hire? What a brilliant idea! I'll get to work on it right away.
btw, I felt bad for that little riposte. I'm not a professional academic, don't claim to be, and have just a little handful of things that have ever been published. Considering the company on this board, I shouldn't have mentioned it. I did enjoy throwing in Dr. Doody, however, who knows more about satire than a lot of us, and whose excellent course was the highlight of my time at VU. She also publishes fiction, a series called - - are you ready? Aristotle Detective. (this is true.)
Too funny.