CL, 6/19/05: Klumb speaks! - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 19, 2005

CL, 6/19/05: Klumb speaks!

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Wonder what happened to the new board policy that says only the board president speaks for the board?

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Wonder which of the eight universities ol' Roy thinks should be eliminated? And, it was told that he didn't show up for the June IHL meeting where the tuition increases were approved. I don't know if that is so.

I join Magnolia in her wonderings as well.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

klumb was not at the june ihl meeting.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Incredibly inappropriate (and not particularly well-written).

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Magnolia wrote:

"Wonder what happened to the new board policy that says only the board president speaks for the board?"

I wonder if RK's disclosure that "some on the state College Board want to put the issue of tuition increases on "automatic pilot," will be viewed as an end run by his collegues? No matter; board members are not accountable to anyone anyway, are they? Each abides by any policy at his or her own pleasure.

RK says, do more than write editorials;

(1) use your paper to demand change through real information;

( I have no idea what he is talking about. It sounds like a swipe at the media. The "real information" implies that what has previously been published is not real or not information.)

(2) recognize, and report on the utter futility of a state like Mississippi having eight free-standing universities, two mostly separate statewide agriculture programs, 15 community colleges, all with unnecessary, duplicative program offerings, two completely separate coordinating boards.

(The conspiracy theory manifest at last. Should MSU and Alcorn consolidate agriculture programs in Lorman or Starkville? Should the new, unified statewide college system be administered out of Oxford or Jackson? Will we move necessary local administration from the Starkville Campus to the Columbus Campus? You couldn't -- and can't -- monkey with "the Valley" or "the W" -- so all that's left is to violate USM.)

Until the Legislature steps in and caps tuition increases like lawmakers are considering doing in Tennessee, (How would tuition caps help improve anything? All that would do is assure that increased costs would have to be borne by other unreliable sources, or increase the likelihood that ...)

the quality of our programs do suffer, ( I agree) our faculty continue to be underpaid and lost, (How big a problem is this at Mississippi schools other than USM?) and our people are denied access to the system. (This is news to me. I thought anybody with a pulse had access to the system. Does anybody know what he's talking about?)

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Magnolia wrote:

Wonder what happened to the new board policy that says only the board president speaks for the board?

Considering the way he signed that letter (see below), it would be next to impossible to claim that he was speaking privately for himself and not for the board:

"Roy Klumb
Member
State College Board
Gulfport"

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Although it is not very well written, Mr. Klumb's letter makes a good point: Mississippi is too poor to support all its institutions of higher learning, and consolidation makes good economic sense. Here's a proposal:

Since it also makes no sense for all these higher ed. institutions to be clustered in close geographical proximity to each other (we must preserve accessibility for our students), let's consolidate all of them that are north of I-20 under "Mississippi's flagship" Ole Miss. We'll give this university the lead in law, medicine, and fine arts (sorry Stephen Judd, but somebody is going to have to move).

We'll leave Jackson State alone in consideration of the Ayer's settlement and in the interests of racial harmony and fairness.

We'll consolidate everything south of I-20 under the leadership of USM in Hattiesburg (seems like a good central location). We'll give this institution the Ag, Vet, Engineering, Science, and Teacher Ed. programs. We can even have a satellite campus at Lorman for the Ag programs (they already have the physical plant for that).

All consolidated schools need a strong liberal arts program since that forms the foundation for the other disciplines.

We'll need to figure out how the community college system fits into this plan, but I'm sure there are good ideas out there and this can be solved. Perhaps the community colleges can serve as less expensive feeder institutions (preserving access to higher ed. for all students) for the consolidated schools and can also serve students who are not academically ready for 4 year schools. Then the 4 year schools wouldn't have to offer these expensive remedial courses.

Since it makes no sense to have 2 separate governing boards, let's consolidate them as well (as Mr. Klumb implied in his letter). It would only be fair to let all current board members go and start afresh with some new members on this consolidated board, members who understand and can work well in the new system.

How about it, Mr. Klumb?

Date: Jun 19, 2005

ram wrote:

(The conspiracy theory manifest at last. Should MSU and Alcorn consolidate agriculture programs in Lorman or Starkville? Should the new, unified statewide college system be administered out of Oxford or Jackson? Will we move necessary local administration from the Starkville Campus to the Columbus Campus? You couldn't -- and can't -- monkey with "the Valley" or "the W" -- so all that's left is to violate USM.)

Of course, Old Roy wasn't on the IHL board back in the late '80s when the whole consolidation thing went as far as "town meetings" across the state. What happened then -- and what you happen again now -- was that they found out that the alumni at Delta State & the "W" had a lot more influence that the board members thought. Oh yeah, throw in two tablespoons of the "Delta Council" to thicken support for free-standing "universities" at Cleveland & Itta Bena.

Another factor that deep-sixxed consolidation back then was the proposal to put the community & junior colleges under IHL. As a career juco teacher & administrator, I spoke out against the proposal then & I would speak out against a similar one today. Why would I want to switch from an effective, responsive local board of trustees to one that doesn't even work well for the institutions it now oversees? (In fairness, I don't think Roy wants to put jucos under IHL, although I think he wants to make IHL institutions a lot more like jucos, particularly in the area of tenure.)

On the face of it, though, Roy is right: Mississippi really cannot afford eight "universities." But to even consider demoting one of the two largest institutions while keeping several institutions with less than 4,000 students as "universities" would be beyond laughable. Of course, Roy would like to roll back all the institutions that were given "university" status since 1960, I'm sure.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Magnolia wrote:

let's consolidate all of them that are north of I-20 under "Mississippi's flagship" Ole Miss...... We'll leave Jackson State alone in consideration of the Ayer's settlement and in the interests of racial harmony and fairness..... We'll consolidate everything south of I-20 under the leadership of USM in Hattiesburg.

We would only have to field 3 football teams--just think of the savings: athletic directors and coaches salaries, stadium upkeep and expansion, luxury box seating, athletic scholarships......

Date: Jun 19, 2005

to respond to a couple of ram's questions.
--about faculty salaries. median faculty salaries at UM, MSU, and USM are well below those of their peer institutions (as of about 2 years ago, but no reason to believe it's improved). USM's are behind those at UM and MSU. by rank, USM's median salary for assistant profs is about the same as that of its peer institutions. the problem gets worse the longer one stays at USM. the gap between median salary for associate profs at USM and those at peer institutions widens. the gap is the worst at the professor rank. at the professor rank try about $20,000.

--as to access. this has been a big issue with Klumb for years, and he's talking about financial access. in fairness, access is a big issue nationally. the argument is, if you continue to increase tuition, some people will not be able to pay the costs of college attendance. the "some" people who will not be able to afford tuition are usually those most economically disadvantaged, but has begun to extend to the middle class.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Invictus wrote:

...Of course, Old Roy wasn't on the IHL board back in the late '80s when the whole consolidation thing went as far as "town meetings" across the state. What happened then -- and what you happen again now -- was that they found out that the alumni at Delta State & the "W" had a lot more influence that the board members thought. Oh yeah, throw in two tablespoons of the "Delta Council" to thicken support for free-standing "universities" at Cleveland & Itta Bena. Another factor that deep-sixxed consolidation back then was the proposal to put the community & junior colleges under IHL....

The state's financial plight may be just desperate enough now that the legislature will bite the bullet and appoint a blue ribbon panel on higher ed reform to cut through the crap and make binding (or as near-binding as the law allows) recommendations on consolidation and governance.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Mr. Klumb's use of the word "simple" is quite appropriate. In his case it just needs none more syllable.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Magnolia wrote:

Although it is not very well written, Mr. Klumb's letter makes a good point: Mississippi is too poor to support all its institutions of higher learning, and consolidation makes good economic sense. Here's a proposal: Since it also makes no sense for all these higher ed. institutions to be clustered in close geographical proximity to each other (we must preserve accessibility for our students), let's consolidate all of them that are north of I-20 under "Mississippi's flagship" Ole Miss. We'll give this university the lead in law, medicine, and fine arts (sorry Stephen Judd, but somebody is going to have to move). We'll leave Jackson State alone in consideration of the Ayer's settlement and in the interests of racial harmony and fairness. We'll consolidate everything south of I-20 under the leadership of USM in Hattiesburg (seems like a good central location). We'll give this institution the Ag, Vet, Engineering, Science, and Teacher Ed. programs. We can even have a satellite campus at Lorman for the Ag programs (they already have the physical plant for that). All consolidated schools need a strong liberal arts program since that forms the foundation for the other disciplines. We'll need to figure out how the community college system fits into this plan, but I'm sure there are good ideas out there and this can be solved. Perhaps the community colleges can serve as less expensive feeder institutions (preserving access to higher ed. for all students) for the consolidated schools and can also serve students who are not academically ready for 4 year schools. Then the 4 year schools wouldn't have to offer these expensive remedial courses. Since it makes no sense to have 2 separate governing boards, let's consolidate them as well (as Mr. Klumb implied in his letter). It would only be fair to let all current board members go and start afresh with some new members on this consolidated board, members who understand and can work well in the new system. How about it, Mr. Klumb?

Sounds like a good plan to me. For one thing, it would be a source of torment to Roy, and we always go for that sort of thing down here. The Boss gives these ideas a big (red) thumb's up.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Other than grammatical issues, I cannot find fault with Klumb's letter.

Mississippi cannot support all of these universities. Jackson State will never be demoted, not will Ole Miss or Mississippi State.

Any objective observer would say that demotion of at least four of the eight would not be unreasonable.

Get ready for the return opf Mississippi Southern College.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

I would love to see someone try to diagram Roy's second sentence. It is a masterpiece of tangled syntax. Only someone truly gifted could produce a sentence like that.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Perspective, Please wrote:

Other than grammatical issues, I cannot find fault with Klumb's letter. Mississippi cannot support all of these universities. Jackson State will never be demoted, not will Ole Miss or Mississippi State. Any objective observer would say that demotion of at least four of the eight would not be unreasonable. Get ready for the return opf Mississippi Southern College.

PP,

I see some of your logic, but how is it logical NOT to have a university in the fastest-growing region of the state?

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Magnolia wrote:

Wonder what happened to the new board policy that says only the board president speaks for the board?

Board of Trustees
Institutions of Higher Learning
State of Mississippi

POLICIES AND BYLAWS

http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/admin/downloads/policiesandbylaws.pdf

p. 162 (emphasis added)

B. Members of the IHL Board should understand the limits of their authority as individual board members and the resultant necessity for the board to function as a cohesive, effective team. In this regard, board members should:
1. Regularly attend board meetings; thoughtfully prepare for and participate in discussions; seek consensus; and vote independently;
2. Actively engage in policy formation and decision-making, speaking up at board and committee meetings, but understanding the need to support policies and decisions once established;
3. Focus their efforts on policy making and dealing with the major issues facing our university system and avoid involvement in administrative and management activities;
4. Allow the President and the Commissioner to serve as the official speakers for the Board of Trustees and university presidents to serve as the official speakers for their institutions – nothing in this guideline seeks to hinder board members from expressing individual opinions about higher education matters;
5. Publicly support and sustain system and university executive officers while privately assessing and exercising critical judgment on performance, all the while maintaining decent respect for differing opinions and offering criticism in a constructive manner; and
6. Communicate promptly to the Commissioner any significant concern or complaint and allow him or her the opportunity to deal with it.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Former PUCer wrote:

Wonder which of the eight universities ol' Roy thinks should be eliminated?

Former PUCer, the answer to your question might be found in this complaint made in the article: "two mostly separate statewide agriculture programs." That same sentence included a comment about duplication of programs. Mississippi State and Alcorn A&M, are our two land-grant universities with agriculture programs. It's unlikely he would advocate closing his own alma mater which is Mississippi State.

If I were an Alcorn A&M supporter I would be furious if a member of the college board made such a statement in public such as occurred in this morning letter.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Cow Cow Blues wrote:

Former PUCer wrote: Wonder which of the eight universities ol' Roy thinks should be eliminated?

Cow Cow Blues wrote: Former PUCer, the answer to your question might be found in this complaint made in the article: "two mostly separate statewide agriculture programs." That same sentence included a comment about duplication of programs. Mississippi State and Alcorn A&M, are our two land-grant universities with agriculture programs. It's unlikely he would advocate closing his own alma mater which is Mississippi State. If I were an Alcorn A&M supporter I would be furious if a member of the college board made such a statement in public such as occurred in this morning letter.

Considering the geographical considerations that Magnolia pointed out about merger, closure, and consolidation, one thing is clear: Mississippi State's position is the most vulnerable. The only solution would be to merge the two land grant schools (the one in Starkville and one in Lorman). Magnolia's geographical considerations leads me to conclude that the solution is to move Mississippi State to Lorman. We would then have only one land grant agricultural school, and the major comprehensive universities would then be geographically balanced. The Mississippi State faculty would transfer to Lorman and take their academic rank and tenure status with them. This move would be of great economic benefit to that part of the state. Everything gained, nothing lost.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Hey, Roy, how do you feel about that proposal?

Date: Jun 19, 2005

I've got a better idea.

Leave Mississippi State at its present location.

Move Ole Miss to Jackson where its medical school already exists, and consolidate Ole Miss with Jackson State. This shouldn't be terribly difficult. Some might recall the time when Wake Forest University was moved from Wake Forest, North Carolina to Winston-Salem. A few alumni groused about it at the time, but after the move Wake Forest became an even greater institution of higher education and it has a medical school at Winston-Salem. After Wake Forest University moved to Winston-Salem, a Baptist seminary relocated to the Wake Forest, N.C. location. I understand that the only ones that complained about that were the pool hall owners.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

I submitted the following to the Clarion Ledger a few minutes ago:

"Roy Klumb's letter to the editor (Sunday July 18) underscores how little he understands about the appropriate relationship between his role as a private citizen and as a member of a public board.

Mr. Klumb is perfectly entitled as a private citizen to express his opinion. But signing a letter expressing his personal opinion by citing his title as a member of the IHL Board is poor judgement as it confuses whether he is speaking as a private citizen or as a public official.

In addition, Mr. Klumb should resist the temptation to use the media as a way of subverting the work of his collegues on the IHL Board by by criticizing those on the board who diasgree with him. Mr. Klumb's letter appears to be an attempt to lobby the public over the heads of those collegues.

The appropriate place for such discussion of disagreements within the Board is within the IHL itself -- not in the media. In effect, Mr. Klumb is doing exactly what he has claimed others with whom he disagrees have done -- to do an end run around his organization by going straight to the press with his disagreements.

But this is something we have been used to from Mr. Klumb all along -- his recurring inability as a member of the Board to keep his fingers out of issues in which he has a personal interest (as witness the debacle over the new contract for the MSU's athletic director, or his very personal expressions of his views on the operations of the board at various points).

Such behavior undermines the integrity of the IHL by raising questions about ability of its members to approach policy issues in a non-partisan way. This kind of action makes a mockery of the Board's claim to objectvity and even-handedness in its dealing with the eight univerties in its system.

Stephen Judd, Hattiesburg. "

Date: Jun 19, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

I submitted the following to the Clarion Ledger a few minutes ago: "Roy Klumb's letter to the editor (Sunday July 18) underscores how little he understands about the appropriate relationship between his role as a private citizen and as a member of a public board. Mr. Klumb is perfectly entitled as a private citizen to express his opinion. But signing a letter expressing his personal opinion by citing his title as a member of the IHL Board is poor judgement as it confuses whether he is speaking as a private citizen or as a public official. In addition, Mr. Klumb should resist the temptation to use the media as a way of subverting the work of his collegues on the IHL Board by by criticizing those on the board who diasgree with him. Mr. Klumb's letter appears to be an attempt to lobby the public over the heads of those collegues. The appropriate place for such discussion of disagreements within the Board is within the IHL itself -- not in the media. In effect, Mr. Klumb is doing exactly what he has claimed others with whom he disagrees have done -- to do an end run around his organization by going straight to the press with his disagreements. But this is something we have been used to from Mr. Klumb all along -- his recurring inability as a member of the Board to keep his fingers out of issues in which he has a personal interest (as witness the debacle over the new contract for the MSU's athletic director, or his very personal expressions of his views on the operations of the board at various points). Such behavior undermines the integrity of the IHL by raising questions about ability of its members to approach policy issues in a non-partisan way. This kind of action makes a mockery of the Board's claim to objectvity and even-handedness in its dealing with the eight univerties in its system. Stephen Judd, Hattiesburg. "

Excellent letter.

Klumb's piece just proves once more why he and Shelby work so well together: they both have a talent for doing dumb things at dumb times (this is technically known as "dumbness squared"). Just when I was thinking to myself last night, "You know, self, things seem to have quieted down at USM," Roy comes to the rescue.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Like many have already expressed, I, too, believe that Mississippi is financially ill-equipped to support the number of institutions currently in operation. However, Magnolia, the following question is a natural one: How can one propose that the Fine Arts migrate northward, when it has been common knowledge that at least one of its segments, i.e. the School of Music at USM, has long been considered the state's flagship for at least that discipline (perhaps even designated as such by the IHL itself many years ago)? We know that no favors were done to the once College of the Arts in the consolidation here, but the departments are still qualitatively strong. Is it really practical to expect Ole Miss to welcome aboard the various numbers already present and accounted for at USM in the arts, generally speaking? Yes, they were considering adopting a College of the Arts structure in Oxford. But think about the sensibility of that adoption. Buildings (facilities) certainly help to project an image of high standard, and God knows there are needs in that area at USM; but when one digs more deeply, the evidence is clear. Quality and quantity already are in place here. Moreover, it would make even less sense to move the arts focus northward without moving the education program right along with it. I say "yes" to consolidation, but bring the arts down here where the quality really has been for decades (and where it has been proposed to maintain the teacher education program) and let it continue in its flagship role...

Date: Jun 19, 2005

I took Magnolia's excellent post as having been written very much tongue in cheek. Essentially it proposes doing away with MSU altogether.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Rebel without a cause wrote:

I've got a better idea.

Let's get serious. Here is a workable model.

1. The USM coast campus whould be closed after land is acquired for a new campus North of I-10. The location would be inland enough in order to avoid the immediate force of the hurricanes. (Such a location is already in the planning stages at William Carey on the coast). The new institution would have no sports and no residential facilities.

2. The Lorman campus whould be closed. Alcorn whould be moved to the new campus North of I-10. All of their faculty, staff, and the name "Alcorn" would be transfered to the new campus. It would be done in a manner which did not violate the Ayers ruling. There would be no intercollegiate sports or residential facilities at the new campus.The coast area would an have the much needed independent university it has wanted for a long time, free of USM Hattiesburg rule.

3. Mississippi Valley University would be closed. All of their faculty and staff would be offered positions at the other public universities. All of their students would be free to transfer to any of the other public universities.

4. Mississippi University of Women would cease to be an independent university. It would become a branch campus of Mississippi State University very much like Mississippi State's branch in Merdian. It would have no intercollegiate sports and no residential facilities.

This model would reduce the number of public universities in Mississippi from eight to six.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

LVN wrote:

I took Magnolia's excellent post as having been written very much tongue in cheek. Essentially it proposes doing away with MSU altogether.

Right, LVN. Antoine has nothing to fear, as this proposal will never happen.

The point to my "proposal" is that unless Mr. Klumb is willing to put everything on the table in his quest to consolidate and restructure higher education in the state, his letter in the CL this morning is hypocritical.

In my opinion, it makes no sense at all to have 2 research universities located within 100 miles of each other and none in the southern 2/3 of the state. However, do you think any of the Miss. State and Ole Miss supporters on the IHL board would ever consider weakening their own institutions in a plan to improve higher education in Mississippi?

Date: Jun 19, 2005

A modest proposal.

USM agrees to drop all intercollegiate athletics and UM and MSU agree to shut down any of their graduate programs that can be transferred to USM. They get football and we get academics. If this hypothetical trade were possible, Roy and the boys would probably leap on it.

Date: Jun 19, 2005

Swap Meet wrote:

A modest proposal.
USM agrees to drop all intercollegiate athletics and UM and MSU agree to shut down any of their graduate programs that can be transferred to USM. They get football and we get academics. If this hypothetical trade were possible, Roy and the boys would probably leap on it.

Why would UM and MSU give up the first rate grad programs, given that they already have first-rate football?