Reporter wrote:

---

The Faculty Senate reps PC report is being put together. It should be out by tomorrow. 

---

Thanks.  Will this report include the administrative changes to the faculty workload policy made without regard to the existing language in the faculty handbook?

Legally Pointed Out wrote:

---

Should anyone end up in court for whatever reason (and I'm being very generous with the term "reason"), a faculty member will be judged upon the Faculty Handbook upon which they were hired. And, if faculty integrity means anything, the changes in the Handbook would never adversely affect the faculty member who is claiming lack of due process etc.  I know this for a fact.

---

The hearings in spring '04 showed that the Faculty Handbook is worthless in the eyes of the Thamseans. It may have been lost in the general confusion, but in his concluding remarks Stringer tried to cite a Handbook passage (from the section on "Scholarly Integrity") that obligates any faculty member to report known or even suspected instances of scholarly dishonesty (such as lying about one's credentials). At that point Jack Hanbury had recently rewritten the Handbook, leaving that passage intact from a previous version, and knew very well it was there. This did not stop him or Thames from attempting to destroy Frank and Gary for their audacity in exposing Dvorak's deceitfulness.

The real issue with Glamser and Stringer is that they would not follow a directive from their local ultimate supervisor, Thames. When he instructed them to cease their investigation, they refused and were immediately in a state of insubordination. Glamser was a prof of socioligy and Stringer was a prof of English -- neither was on payroll as a private investigator. You blind followers of the faith need to get over yourselves. Maybe you'll do that when Clark and the IHL give Thames his full second term back.

Investigator wrote:

---

SFT didn't give them an order to cease their investigation because he didn't know it was going on until he read their emails.  The order would not have been a valid order even if he gave it.  Remember people are punished for following invalid orders.  "Just following orders" is not a defense.  

---

You're really showing your lack of understanding here. He did tell them to cease the investigation and they continued.

Further, the whole "following orders is no defense" only works when following orders results in criminal activity. If the order is "don't murder that man" and you go ahead, then you disobeyed an order AND broke the law, and you should be punished for both. Had G&S followed the directive from SFT, they would probably still be working here and all of you bleeding heart libs wouldn't have your academic "martyrs" to cry about.

watchgerbil wrote:

---

Investigator wrote: SFT didn't give them an order to cease their investigation because he didn't know it was going on until he read their emails.  The order would not have been a valid order even if he gave it.  Remember people are punished for following invalid orders.  "Just following orders" is not a defense.   You're really showing your lack of understanding here. He did tell them to cease the investigation and they continued. Further, the whole "following orders is no defense" only works when following orders results in criminal activity. If the order is "don't murder that man" and you go ahead, then you disobeyed an order AND broke the law, and you should be punished for both. Had G&S followed the directive from SFT, they would probably still be working here and all of you bleeding heart libs wouldn't have your academic "martyrs" to cry about.

---

Watchgerbil, from what I heard you are wrong.  Glamser supplied SFT with the packet of information he received in December 02, and told SFT the AAUP would rather he look into this rather than AAUP.  It was in late January 03 that Glamser asked Stringer to investigate because SFT didn't act on the information provided.  

In addition it is wrong to not do ones duty because you were ordered not to.  So you are wrong on your ethics also.  If you don't like these high standards of conduct, work in the private sector.

Anyway I consider you a troll.  Your statement "bleeding heart libs” gave you away. 

 

watchgerbil wrote:

---

The real issue with Glamser and Stringer is that they would not follow a directive from their local ultimate supervisor, Thames. When he instructed them to cease their investigation, they refused and were immediately in a state of insubordination.

---

You're wrong, watcherbill. They were never given such a directive. The first communication was that they were being terminated, and that came two months after the investigation. Evidently you didn't follow the events very closely from the beginning.  

I'm a little confused. Two assumptions are being made, first that Clark will be selected, and second that Clark likes SFT. Isn't Clark a Democrat? What ties or obligations to Thames exist that would ensure Clark as Commissioner = four more years for Thames? I think some rather broad leaps are being made.

Outside Observer wrote:

---

So, anyone who is not a liberal is a troll?

---

No, Outside Observer, it was the calling of names that gave the troll away, not the mention of "liberal" or "bleeding heart".  Such statements are meant to excite emotion and end logical discourse.  That is what makes it a troll tactic.

watchgerbil wrote:

---

Assume for a moment that SFT didn't give G&S an order to stop. Your own statements make G&S out to be liars. G says "We'd rather you handle it. AAUP would rather you investigate it." Then, 1 month later, G&S undertake an investigation. So Glamser was lying when he told SFT that the AAUP would let SFT handle it?

---

No, Glamser gave SFT over a month, part of December and January with no action.  SFT said he was sick during that time and also some of that time was for the Christmas holidays.  The AAUP had rather SFT handle it, but he didn't.  SFT has a history of sitting on and suppressing negative news.  In fact all SFT did during that time was an investigation the whistleblowers by monitoring emails. 

 

Saying you rather not do something and then deciding to do it is not lying.  It is just doing what you wished you didn't have to do.

 

Coast Resident wrote:

---

“Troll” ...... Let us all try to raise the bar and have a little less of the playground name calling mentality, which at times is rampant on this site, and stick the real issues raised in this thread. Or does that make me a Troll?

---

Coast Resident: A coast resident, of all people, should know the meaning of the word "troll." Its meaning is now common knowledge and the term is even beginning to appear in dictoraries in the following context. It is NOT a "playground" word:

"On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages that create controversy or an angry response without adding content to the discussion, often intentionally, merely as a ludibrium. Though technically different from flaming, which is an unmistakable direct personal attack, trolls often resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is to create controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they disagree, or sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating atmosphere."

That's what language is all about. To communicate.  "Troll" communicates in one word all of the above.

watchgerbil wrote:

---

The real issue with Glamser and Stringer is that they would not follow . . . . second term back.

---

Watchgerbil? I've missed you!

Glamser never got a directive of any sort from SFT. In fact, Thames never even responded to the receipt of the documents according to my source. The AAUP committee (there were at least three on it) and later the faculty senate acted according to the principals set for in the Faculty Handbook. And both came to the same conclusion--as did Dvorak's reference who was quoted in the Chronicle.

My guess is that Thames was delighted this was happening. He'd been heard to say publicly that he gone out and hired himself a lawyer who knew how to fire tenured faculty. He and Hanbury must have been dancing in the dome. Another example of how little they knew about academic procedure, integrity.

Emma wrote:

---

 his day of judgement is coming - whether he's in office or not at the time - his past will catch up with him.

---

We've already got the Presidential suite prepared down here.