IHL May minutes -- first pass (legal fees) - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 17, 2005

IHL May minutes -- first pass (legal fees)

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Payment of legal fees for professional services rendered by Adams & Reese (Statement dated 8/31/04) from the funds of The University of Southern Mississippi. (This statement represents services and expenses in connection with the Thames v. Glamser case.)

Whoa doggies, Shelby's little temper fit that day sure cost us taxpayers a bundle.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

The State of Mississippi and the IHL should require Shelby Thames to personally reimburse USM's coffers for all legal fees incurred in his petty campaign against Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser. He should also reimburse USM for all monies paid to Angie Dvorak, Jack Hanbury, and Mark Dvorak during their time on the dole. I sincerely hope that someone from the HA or CL will report to the public in an easily understandable manner the staggering sums of taxpayer money squandered by the incompetent Thames administration.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

With legal counsel on the payroll, Lee Gore, why are the taxpayers of the state of Mississippi having to pay all of this money for outside counsel? Either Gore is able to handle the legal affairs of the University or they need to hire someone who is. It is ludicrous to pay this much MORE money when there is someone who is already being paid to supposedly do the job.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Payment of legal fees for professional services rendered by Adams & Reese (Statement dated 8/31/04) from the funds of The University of Southern Mississippi. (This statement represents services and expenses in connection with the Thames v. Glamser case.)
TOTAL DUE....................................................$107,589.05

Incredible. I truly hope this is reported. I am guessing that this figure, combined with the two-year pay-offs to G/S to agree to work no longer at USM (while they work elsewhere), would bring the total bill for this fiasco to something close to a half-million dollars. Way to go, Shelby! Keep up the good work of using the taxpayers' funds wisely!

Date: Jun 17, 2005

$169,029.71

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Based on the lack of evidence during the Glamser/Stringer hearing which I listened to on WUSM, I judged the charges to be frivolous. The legal expenditures shown in the board minutes are outrageous. As a taxpayer I object to using public funds in such a wreckless manner. Don't expect me to contribute one red cent to the university until USM can clearly demonstrate to my satisfaction that it is able to manage responsibly. Want more funds for improvements to the athletic facilities? Shove it up your stadium seat.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Garbanzo Bean Counter wrote:

The State of Mississippi and the IHL should require Shelby Thames to personally reimburse USM's coffers for all legal fees incurred in his petty campaign against Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser.

Hear, hear!

Maybe Ole Roy could chip in a few hundred thou on the tab, too.

I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost to the university of the Glamser-Stringer debacle approaches a half million bucks.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but those minutes say the board approved "payment of legal fees ... from the funds of The University of Southern Mississippi." Not "from the funds of the IHL board" or "from the funds of Mississippi State University." At any point, the board could've ordered SFT to drop it, but they didn't. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that was not an accident.

Chalk another success up for the anti-USM faction on the board of trustees.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Not "from the funds of the IHL board" or "from the funds of Mississippi State University." At any point, the board could've ordered SFT to drop it, but they didn't. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that was not an accident. -- Invictus

Vict, that's a sobering and sickening observation.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Let us not forget that the defense incurred significant expenses also. It was necessary that Gary and Frank obtain legal council. Those costs were not defrayed by the university or the IHL. Many persons willingly contributed to the defense fund. The human cost to Gary, Frank, and their families was even greater.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

My sources say that Adams and Reese (Reece??) are making a pretty penny on the ongoing Whiting case - things are shaking up there - it's continuing to move, and it looks grim for Thames.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Let me count the ways wrote:

Let us not forget that the defense incurred significant expenses also. It was necessary that Gary and Frank obtain legal council. Those costs were not defrayed by the university or the IHL. Many persons willingly contributed to the defense fund. The human cost to Gary, Frank, and their families was even greater.

You are right about the "human cost" factor. That's the hugest price. Always remember that originally the IHL had intended FOR someone from Adams and Reese to oversee the Glamser and Stringer hearings until FireShelby stepped in!!!!

Date: Jun 17, 2005

That's an awful lot of money. That would pay for a lot of instruction. If we really ran this place like a "business" a chief executive who wasted that kind of dough just because somebody questioned a hire wouldve been shown the door.

On a more scary thought, does it worry people that SFT & Co. are willing to spend that kind of cash to punish somebody? No price is too high for retribution?

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Third Witch wrote:

". . . . . just because somebody questioned a hire . . . . ."

Upon learning of the USM debacle. people have asked me the question "what happened?" I have been searching for a brief sentence to explain to them what happened. Third Witch, you've found that sentence for me: "Somebody questioned a hire." That says it very nicely. "Somebody questioned a hire." I'll test that sentence tomorrow, but I'm reasonably confident their response to that will be "Is that all there is?" And I'll say "Yep. That's all there is. Somebody questioned a hire." I'm reasonably confident that their response to that will be "My word! And that cost the taxpayers how much?"

Date: Jun 17, 2005

Third Witch wrote:

That's an awful lot of money. That would pay for a lot of instruction. If we really ran this place like a "business" a chief executive who wasted that kind of dough just because somebody questioned a hire wouldve been shown the door.

And don't forget that within the same year, that same "CEO" had triggered an accreditation review that is also costing a heap pile of paper with pictures of dead presidents on it.

For somebody who spouts off a lot about "fiscal responsibility," Shelby Thames sure has wasted a lot of money. Money that could have been spent on instruction. Or more lamp posts or bricks'n'mortar or football uniforms for that matter. But money that could have been spent on something tangibly useful for students at the University of Southern Mississippi.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

I believed I missed something. What is the Brewer and Servedio case? The Olson Case? and the Dupree public records case?

Date: Jun 17, 2005

the servidio, brewer, and olson cases were filed against USM and settled in late May. go to the twelfth circuit court district of mississippi webpage to see the dates. i believe these are cases dealing with issues in prior administrations. the dupree open records case was filed by a business prof who wanted particular USM records. was discussed in threads some months ago.

Date: Jun 17, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

the dupree open records case was filed by a business prof who wanted particular USM records.

Does this mean that the taxpayer shelled out $13,392.72 because somebody requested public records through the freedom of information act? Was there something that the university did not want released that motivated it to try to block it to the extent of $13,392.72?

Date: Jun 17, 2005

The smell of money wrote:

stinky cheese man wrote:
the dupree open records case was filed by a business prof who wanted particular USM records.
Does this mean that the taxpayer shelled out $13,392.72 because somebody requested public records through the freedom of information act? Was there something that the university did not want released that motivated it to try to block it to the extent of $13,392.72?

It means that taxpayers shelled out $13,392.72 to pay attorneys to retrieve the documents, presumably vetting what was released to keep the requesting party from seeing anything he wasn't supposed to see.

Why lawyers were paid to pull documents from filing cabinets, I dunno. That's an awfully clerical type assignment

Date: Jun 18, 2005

Note on page 10 of the May 2005 IHL Board minutes that the Board approved $107,589.05 (yes, $107,589.05) in legal fees to Adams and Reese for "services and expenses in connection with the Thames v. Glamser case." Does anyone know if additional legal fees had been approved at any other time in defense of the case?

Date: Jun 18, 2005

Note the legal expenses incurred because of Thames' little temper tandrum should be deducted from the savings that USM has supposedly realized from its reorganization.

I know a lot of business men, and Thames ain't no business man.

Date: Jun 18, 2005

Payment of legal fees for professional services rendered by Adams & Reese (Statement dated 8/31/04) from the funds of The University of Southern Mississippi. (This statement represents services and expenses in connection with the Thames v. Glamser case.)
TOTAL DUE....................................................$107,589.05

The above entry indicates that the statement from Adams & Reese was dated 8/31/04. This raises the question as to why it is just now being entered into the board minutes. Are such matters entered only once per year or was there a specific reason for the delay? Could it be that controversial data such as these were deliberately delayed from being made public until after IHL made the decision about the USM presidency for the next two years? Or maybe there was another reason. Anybody know why the delay?

Date: Jun 18, 2005

I noticed that an item called "Inter-agency Agreement Between the Board and the Office of the Attorney General for the Provision of Legal Services for the Fiscal Year 2006" was pulled from the IHL agenda.

Mississippi's system of higher education may be up to its eyeballs in litigation.

Date: Jun 18, 2005

A matter of record wrote:

Payment of legal fees for professional services rendered by Adams & Reese (Statement dated 8/31/04) from the funds of The University of Southern Mississippi. (This statement represents services and expenses in connection with the Thames v. Glamser case.) TOTAL DUE....................................................$107,589.05 The above entry indicates that the statement from Adams & Reese was dated 8/31/04. This raises the question as to why it is just now being entered into the board minutes. Are such matters entered only once per year or was there a specific reason for the delay? Could it be that controversial data such as these were deliberately delayed from being made public until after IHL made the decision about the USM presidency for the next two years? Or maybe there was another reason. Anybody know why the delay?

Is it because we are approaching the end if this fiscal year? Although the Glamser-Stringer hearings were in the spring '04 the payment seems to be in August and so occurred in this fiscal year.

Date: Jun 18, 2005

Maybe wrote:

Is it because we are approaching the end if this fiscal year? Although the Glamser-Stringer hearings were in the spring '04 the payment seems to be in August and so occurred in this fiscal year.

A reasonable hypothesis. But wouldn't they wait until the fiscal year has ended completely before compiling the list? If they publish it each fiscal year, I can't think of any good reason why they should not wait until June 30 to publish it. If they waited until June 30, the entire fiscal year would be represented. It wouldn't make sense to cut it off just prior to that time.

Date: Jun 18, 2005

stinky cheese man will know. where are you stinky?

Date: Jun 18, 2005

i'm here but no idea. when i first saw the dollar amount i had the same reaction everyone else did. to put it in a bit of perspective, i was a juror for a legal malpractice case a few years ago. in that case we saw the billing of a big jackson lawfirm for one week of work-- over $70,000. so the firm in question here might not have worked all that long. but it's still money that could have been better spent on something that would have benefitted students.

Date: Jun 18, 2005

A matter of record wrote:

But wouldn't they wait until the fiscal year has ended completely before compiling the list? If they publish it each fiscal year, I can't think of any good reason why they should not wait until June 30 to publish it. If they waited until June 30, the entire fiscal year would be represented. It wouldn't make sense to cut it off just prior to that time.

Legal expenses are published in the Board minutes every month. Payment is typically authorized within a month or two of the statement date.

Date: Jun 18, 2005

info is correct. since i'm waiting for my lawn to dry before i mow, i read the minutes of the board (slow day!). other legal bills from the same time frame as the $100,000+ bill were paid in september and october. no clear reason why the delay.

Date: Jun 18, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

no clear reason why the delay.

Sure there is. Conspiracy theory.

It's been explained up-thread. If this had come out, say, in January, there would've been a lot less support for Shelby's contract extension. (Quit talking about how he's gonna step down -- he got a freakin' contract extension!)

Somebody at the HA needs to pick this one up & run with it. Point #1: SFT wasted $107K on a frivolous egocentric (il)legal action. Point #2: The IHL board "rewarded" this wastefulness with a one year contract extension. Point #3: The IHL staff (i.e., Crofts) "buried" the billing until after SFT's contract extension was announced. That's a pretty good coordinated effort, IM(NS)HO.