Walt,

A genuine question: how does Malone's decision fit into your scenario? 

David Johnson wrote:

---

Walt,

Certainly an interesting analysis and one that could certainly be plausible. I have a couple of doubts or questions about it, however.

First, I think it highly unlikely that Commissioner Crofts will come out in a public display of support for SFT. He may quietly contact Doty and tell him to slow down, but it is more likely he'll let this little internal political maneuvering take its course. I think many have learned from the Grimes/Doty fiasco that Doty is unpredictable at best when told what to do.

Second, and this really is a question: How likely is USNWR to boost USM's ranking back to Tier III while it remains under the cloud of SACS probation? The team visit won't occur until a month after the USNWR rankings are published and the probation won't be lifted, at earliest, until the December SACS meeting, if I understand the SACS protocols correctly. (Invictus may be able to shed some light on this for us.) I would think USNWR would be concerned about its own credibility should it boost the ranking of a school under probation.

Just my two cents...and I certainly hope that you are wrong about 2010.

---

Towner, Down With the Gowners Until They Are Goners wrote:

---

I like Shelby's fighting spirit.  This is the kind of guy we need, he won't give up.  I'm making pro-Thames bumper stickers to combat the whiny professors.  Hattiesburg needs to stay Hattiesburg.

---

David Johnson wrote:

---

How likely is USNWR to boost USM's ranking back to Tier III while it remains under the cloud of SACS probation? . . . . I would think USNWR would be concerned about its own credibility should it boost the ranking of a school under probation.

---

Howdy David,

The USNWR ratings are quantitatively driven. All the editors there do is crunch the numbers. The mere fact of USM being on SACS probabation, and USNWR's concern about their own credibility, do not enter into the numbers.

Hook em' horns!

walt wrote:

---

There's also the disastrous possibility that USNWR elevates USM back to Tier III.  If so, the victory string will be one of 4, with the 3rd looming HUGE.  The USNWR victory would also increase the stature of the September SACS win (assuming it comes, of course).  Thames could also parlay some of the earlier unexpected victories by saying something like "Of the many reasons for USNWR's decision to lift us back to Tier III was the success of our MIDAS program." . 

---

walt,

I take this scenario a good deal more seriously than your first three. Still, I don't buy your conclusion.

1. I'm sure that Thames is still trying to extend his hold on power past May 2007.  He still has his Gang of Four (or is it Gang of Five?) on the IHL Board and his support from kingmaker wannabes in Hattiesburg.  It doesn't follow, however, that he is in a good position to get what he wants.  As Invictus, among others, has warned us, some of those who want to hurt or diminish USM have decided to get rid of Thames, because he has proven to be a liability to their cause.  If you are worried only about 3 more years for Thames, you won't see other moves coming that are intended to harm USM.

2. After some thought about it, I believe that the initial public criticisms of MIDAS could have been framed better.  The focus should not have been on the unfairness of bonuses for professors who do funded research with buyouts of their teaching; this sounds like a complaint about the unfairness of extramural research funding not being equally available in every discipline.

It doesn't follow that public criticism of MIDAS is bad.  MIDAS is a screwy program that has no counterparts at most other state universities.  Mississippi State, which pulls in a lot more grant bucks per year than USM, feels no need for it.  Clemson pulls in a lot more grant bucks per year, too, and has shown a much higher rate of growth than USM in that area over the last few years--yet CU has never awarded MIDAS-style bonuses.

What MIDAS seems intended to do is reward only those faculty members who do what Shelby Thames used to do: full-time industrial research (or its equivalent) and no undergraduate teaching.  And a university simply cannot function if all faculty members conform to the Shelbyite ideal.  At the very least, a second "core [or is that corps?] of instruction" would have be hired to do the teaching (for Shelby Thames certainly intends to keep collecting undergraduate tuition).

MIDAS also provides perverse incentives to seek funding that includes buyouts of teaching time instead of funding that does not.

MIDAS appears to give bonuses to people whose funding-with-buyouts is actually by Congressional appropriation, rather than a competitive process for awarding grants.  This, in fact, is the most obvious basis for the allegations of favoritism that have been leveled at the program.  Can anyone provide further details about the way employees of "earmarked" centers and institutes are paid?

A MIDAS bonus given to a principal investigator on a National Science Foundation grant would violate NSF's rules.  If Thames has been foolish enough to do something like this, USM will end up getting audited and ordered to return at least the amount of the bonus to NSF.

Finally, if MIDAS succesfully "incents" researchers to get more grant and contract funding, why has growth in these areas been so anemic under Thames?  Why has growth been much higher at universities that don't give out MIDAS-style bonuses?  Could it be becasue attracting and keeping top quality researchers to a place where they want to work is more effective than handing out bonuses to a few and chastising the rest with whips and scorpions?

Myron Henry's letter made several good points, but there is more work to be done on this issue.

You don't clam up and play dead because you got criticized in the press.  A standard faculty complaint at nearly every university is that the faculty are screwed because the press always believes the administration.  That is not the case at USM.  Thames' credibility has been badly hurt, he's lost the head of his PR machine, and now his guy Ken Malone has lost part of his empire.  The fact still remains that media people may not understand the issue (when the Hat Am editorial proclaimed that MIDAS saved money for USM, that was simple economic ignorance).  There is also the distinct possiblity that no media outlet in Mississippi wants to be seen as siding with the faculty on every issue (as the Clarion-Ledger editorial page plainly showed, after Thames' lame-duckitude was announced).

Illusions about the MIDAS program are part of a wider misunderstanding about grant and contract-funded research, and about "economic development" in general.  To prevail against someone who claims to be building an "economic development university," you need to educate people about what that would mean, and why it is not a viable economic model because it cannot support many of the functions of the university.

3.  I'm not convinced, from what I've read, that Harold Doty is trying to buck SACS over casino gambling management courses.  (If he really is trying to do that, the entire faculty of the CoB has obvious reasons to demand his immediate resignation...)  It's hard for me to tell what else is going on in the college, because of amount of disinformation that keeps appearing on this board.  But if he is managing the college as badly as some people are saying, the CoB faculty have to get their priorities straight and do some strategic thinking.  As we count down toward May 2007, Thames is steadily losing his ability to put members of his crew in key positions.  Imagine what kind of hell would break loose if he tried to replace Doty with Ken Malone, for instance.  I'm not convinced that Ken Malone would want the job under those circumstances.

4. Those of us on the outside of the US N&WR process can't know the exact negative impact that not submitting certain material had on USM's rating.  But the academic reputation scores (25% of the total) do not favor a rebound into the third tier, for reasons discussed earlier on this thread.

5.  As for SACS probation being lifted the reports go in next month, I'm not a position to know.  But the fact that administrative trolls like "In the Know" are already preparing to blame faculty bodies suggests that the upper administration is less confident about the outcome than it is pretending to be.

Conclusion: The basic reason that I question your scenarios is that each one presupposes either total passivity or total failure on the part of the faculty, and either total gullibility or total  hostility from the press.  If your assumptions were true, Shelby Thames would be President for Life, and Angie Dvorak and the Kentucky Mafia would still be in the employ of USM.

In fact, professors at USM are in a position to take the lead on many issues.  Here's just one example.  Where is the report that shows what USM has been spending on Noetic Technologies, and what revenue it is deriving from Noetic Technologies?  We've heard nothing since the initial press release--why?  Could it be because Noetic is a complete boondoggle?

If you don't like the publicity that Thames is getting, put some issues in front of the press that you know Thames and his allies would rather not see being covered.

Robert Campbell

Shelby Thames' methods of petty vindictiveness and revenge are not always as direct as locking professors out of their offices, reorganizing in one fell swoop, missing contract deadlines, or announcing monitored e-mail.  They certainly are not direct when he is being monitored so closely.  Although his methods may change, his nature doesn't.  Ask the people who knew him long before his meteoric rise.

SACS consultant was recently on campus.  SACS probation response is fine.  USM will be off probation.  This is cause for celebration for all, especially all the department chairs and faculty who worked so hard on assessment of distance learning activities in their areas.

The main concern I've heard Exline talk about relates to reaffirmation and the program reviews that haven't been done.  Academic and Graduate Councils recently (June) passed the guidelines but haven't actually done any reviews.  Exline thinks SACS will make a recommendation in that area and follow-up by asking those groups for some results.  Other than that, I've heard her say to numerous groups, including the Compliance Leadership Team, that she is pleased with faculty committment and work on SACS projects.

Probation Reporter wrote:

---

SACS consultant was recently on campus.  SACS probation response is fine.  USM will be off probation.  This is cause for celebration for all, especially all the department chairs and faculty who worked so hard on assessment of distance learning activities in their areas.
The main concern I've heard Exline talk about relates to reaffirmation and the program reviews that haven't been done.  Academic and Graduate Councils recently (June) passed the guidelines but haven't actually done any reviews.  Exline thinks SACS will make a recommendation in that area and follow-up by asking those groups for some results.  Other than that, I've heard her say to numerous groups, including the Compliance Leadership Team, that she is pleased with faculty committment and work on SACS projects.

---