CoAL dean and British Studies - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 26, 2005

CoAL dean and British Studies

Date: Jul 26, 2005

Pood must go! A vote of no confidence is waiting in the wings for the next idiotic move on his part.

Date: Jul 26, 2005

Angeline wrote:

Pood must go! A vote of no confidence is waiting in the wings for the next idiotic move on his part.

I sure hope this is true. No one except SFT (and perhaps the Kentucky mafia) deserves it more. To all the serious teachers and researchers (and performers) in the college, he is a joke. Some people think he's just out of his league but harmless. It is true that he is out of his league, but he's certainly not harmless as he carries out the wishes of SFT while trying to claw his own way to the top.

Date: Jul 26, 2005

Date: Jul 26, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Stephen, you were speechless??

Date: Jul 26, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Now you are making sense Stephen. And no misspelled words! Your best post yet. I'm impressed.

Date: Jul 26, 2005

Joker wrote:

stephen judd wrote: Now you are making sense Stephen. And no misspelled words! Your best post yet. I'm impressed.

Just so there's no confusion...my earlier post was not intended in the same way as Joker's

Date: Jul 26, 2005

I do not want to contradict the history that many of those on this Board have had with the Dean. We all know that history and it obviously is one that continues to be troubling for some programs.

However, in the interest of fairness and also to provide some personal transparency, I was extremely involved in the fight to win 124 hour exemptions for theatre, music and dance. The Dean spent a great deal of time and energy and, to my mind, risked a fair amoiunt of credibility in this fight. He also represented us well at the final board meetings last week, during which time I was in phone contact with him at least three times. I also have to admit that Jay lent his presence, and some well-placed verbal support (and hence the authority of the Provost) to our hearing with the Board staff over a month ago. Jay also urged the President to geyt involved, and I know for a fact that the President actively engaged Commissioner Crofts on this issue.

This does not chnage my oponion of the administration as w hole and the damage that has been done. And I don't say this, as I have indicated, to contradict history. But I would be less than fair if I kept silent and did not volunteer that in the arts, at least, I think the Dean has been very proactive in a number of situations I have been part of.

Date: Jul 26, 2005

Stephen Judd wrote:

This does not chnage my oponion of the administration as w hole and the damage that has been done. And I don't say this, as I have indicated, to contradict history. But I would be less than fair if I kept silent and did not volunteer that in the arts, at least, I think the Dean has been very proactive in a number of situations I have been part of.

Stephen: I am glad to hear that some programs are doing ok under Pood - and we all know certain people in the college have benefited enormously (I don't mean you Stephen) - but his overall impact is horrific. Just glance at the former Liberal Arts departments and see the devastation that the loss of huge numbers of highly accomplished faculty has wrought. What has he done to stop it? Nothing - in fact it is evident in many cases that he has encouraged it. He plays around in the internal dynamics of departments, telling them what sort of positions they can hire for and which ones they can't regardless of the collected expertise expressed by the given departments. He chooses new chairs (7 this summer!) against the expressed collective will of many of the departments. He plays favorites - he calls them his "friends" - he conveniently forgets what he has said publicly and goes back on promises - he discusses personnel issues with persons unrelated to the specific case (which is illegal, by the way) - he shows little understanding of high quality academics - he rewards poor or questionable performers and discourages those with good national reputations. What else can I say? Pood is no friend of academic quality.

Date: Jul 26, 2005

he discusses personnel issues with persons unrelated to the specific case (which is illegal, by the way)

whoa, this is serious lawsuit territory!

Date: Jul 26, 2005

Angeline wrote:

Stephen: I am glad to hear that some programs are doing ok under Pood - and we all know certain people in the college have benefited enormously (I don't mean you Stephen) - but his overall impact is horrific. Just glance at the former Liberal Arts departments and see the devastation that the loss of huge numbers of highly accomplished faculty has wrought. What has he done to stop it? Nothing - in fact it is evident in many cases that he has encouraged it. He plays around in the internal dynamics of departments, telling them what sort of positions they can hire for and which ones they can't regardless of the collected expertise expressed by the given departments. He chooses new chairs (7 this summer!) against the expressed collective will of many of the departments. He plays favorites - he calls them his "friends" - he conveniently forgets what he has said publicly and goes back on promises - he discusses personnel issues with persons unrelated to the specific case (which is illegal, by the way) - he shows little understanding of high quality academics - he rewards poor or questionable performers and discourages those with good national reputations. What else can I say? Pood is no friend of academic quality.

I appreciate these thoughts -- but I think in fairness that if people on the board say that Pood has been bad for every program then I am obligated to step forward and say that it is not true in all cases. That may not change the arguement that you make, but I don't think I would be being ethical if I did not note that some of the broad statements people are making are not true.

I'm not making a complicated argument -- or even a major defence of the dean. I'll admit to having a complicated relationship with him because of my position as a director. And I have shared many of the the very things you have stated (and more) to him in pretty frank terms. I'm simply trying to make sure the history we construct is accurate -- or at least that my program is not implicated in something which is not, in this case, true.

Must go down below to see the audience out . . . .

Date: Jul 26, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

The Dean spent a great deal of time and energy and, to my mind, risked a fair amoiunt of credibility in this fight. He also represented us well at the final board meetings last week

Stephen, I know you're trying to be fair to your dean, but honestly isn't his representation in this matter something that is routine and normally expected of academic deans?

Date: Jul 26, 2005

Travel voucher wrote:

stephen judd wrote: Stephen, I know you're trying to be fair to your dean, but honestly isn't his representation in this matter something that is routine and normally expected of academic deans?

Well, perhaps -- but I know that many programs were not happy about the hours and particularly those who had NCATE issues to deal with. I do know that we said this loss of hours will hurt the quality of the program and will not benefit our students and it stands to affect our accrediation. We submitted five separate defenses -- the Dean at any point could have said enough is enough. My perception is that other Deans did. I think it was one very time cosuming chore in the midst of a very time consuming period for all of us with SACs -- and I think this was a headache, under the circumstances, that he did not have t deal with if he did not want to.

Fact is, the Dean pointed out the principle to me: once we determined that our program would suffer in quality from this rule, that it would not help our students but would in fact, render them evenless prepared than they already are, and once we believed it could clearly risk our accreditation -- he pointed out that the Board was, in effect, micromanaging a program over the expertise of that program's faculty.

So perhaps you are right -- in routine times this might have been routine. But these are not routine times, and I think he pushed far harder than he was obligated to push.

Again, I'm a little uncomfortable here because I feel as though in simply trying to acknowlege that, in so far as the arts ( and theatre and dance in particular are concerned) the picture of a dean who is less than competent and not concerned with quality is manifestly not true. I'm not stupid -- I've been here through the entire three years amnd I have friends in other departments and I am a card carrying member (well, I need to pay my dues) of the AAUP. So I don't think I need to be treated like an apologist. I'm just not comfortable staying silent about my experience or that of my department because silence is assumed to be assent and in the case of my program, to assent would be to assent to an inaccurate history. Maybe we are the 10% that got special treatment, or got lucky, or -- who knows? I don't think so because theatre and dance have been very out about our feelings concerning the administration since day one, at least a third of us are AAUP members, and we have since the day the Dean came in been very clear about the problems we see/have seen.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

Stephen,

Good for you. I applaud your sense of fairness. The backlash you are receiving is indicative of the blinding hatred some have for anyone and everyone involved in any sort of positive way with the Thames administration. The fact that you can separate the bad that Pood has done from the good that he has done lends you more credibility in this old dog's book. After having been at USM for 20+ years, I have seen too many instances of faculty who think administrators are going to screw them at every turn, and that's what's cropping up here. Bravo to you for pointing out that Pood is willing to go to bat for his programs when they need help...at least sometimes.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

My experience has been that it is true that Pood has been helpful to the arts. He sees them as the "stars" in his "little piece of land." And with the exception of a few like Stephen, the faculty has been docile, not pains in the a** like those d*** humanities folks who traffic in words.

He's helped several of the music programs (opera for sure), but there is no doubt that he has favorites and his opinion is not based on anything but whether that person pays homage to him or has some power with the upper administration. I know of others that he has treated wretchedly, without listening to them or to others who know their work. I suspect that it was dealing with Pood that has been the underlying reason why several people ( including some in music as well as the humanities and social sciences) have left. I also know of town people who are leaving the Partners for the Arts board because they just don't like dealing with him.

I, like others, have immense respect for you, Stephen, and I appreciate Pood's effort on behalf of the academic integrity of the programs. But I don't believe for a minute that he did it for the right reasons. But hey. Let's take what we can get!

Date: Jul 27, 2005

el W.C. wrote:

Bravo to you for pointing out that Pood is willing to go to bat for his programs when they need help...

And you think that speaking out in behalf of a program is beyond the call of duty? I thought it was part of a dean's job description. You make it sound risky.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

It seems we are suffering from very low expectations. If a dean doesn't try to fire us or somehow bring us down, he deserves praise? If I go teach my classes on the days and times I'm supoosed to, do I deserve extra kudos? It's like we are in an abusive relationship, when we don't get hit, we're grateful. I say it's about time these incompetent deans did something to help the faculty. They all need to go with the new admin, they are all tainted.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

I absolutely agree with Low Expectations. The current deans need to go when SFT is out.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

I certainly understand some of the arguments made here on both sides, but there is one fact that remains. Elliot is not a truthful person.

I have personal knowledge of the truth being side stepped by Elliot.

If you cant take a man for his word, all the other things are nothing but footnotes

Date: Jul 27, 2005

running down the street wrote:

I certainly understand some of the arguments made here on both sides, but there is one fact that remains. Elliot is not a truthful person. I have personal knowledge of the truth being side stepped by Elliot. If you cant take a man for his word, all the other things are nothing but footnotes

Amen again.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

el W.C. wrote:

Bravo to you for pointing out that Pood is willing to go to bat for his programs when they need help

And going to bat for COAL faculty members G&S when they needed help?

Date: Jul 27, 2005

Again, you show a lack of understanding of how hard it is to get things done when dealing with Thames. Had Pood stood against Thames in the G&S matter, he would have been axed. Pood would be your hero (and a martyr), but you'd probably have Ken Malone as your Dean. Pood has played the game fairly well with respect to Thames.

One question for you: Is Ebeneezer Scrooge a terrible character?

Date: Jul 27, 2005

:el W.C.

Is Elliott Pood really the kind of dean you want?

I know that deans are given a hard time by the faculty. They really are caught in the middle between departments and upper administration.

But I ask again: take the G/S affair out of the mix and is Pood still the kind of person you want as dean?

Date: Jul 27, 2005

el W.C. wrote:

Had Pood stood against Thames in the G&S matter, he would have been axed.

You seem to believe that a dean should take no action in matters such as this in order to save his own @ss. You and I have different views about the role of a dean. There has to be a time when doing the right thing trumps job security. Do you aware of what you said?

Date: Jul 27, 2005

Choices wrote:

el W.C. wrote: Had Pood stood against Thames in the G&S matter, he would have been axed. You seem to believe that a dean should take no action in matters such as this in order to save his own @ss. You and I have different views about the role of a dean. There has to be a time when doing the right thing trumps job security. Do you aware of what you said?

Yet another reason why Pood should go.

I do agree with el W.C. that deans sometimes get a bad rap. Many in music could not stand Peter Alexander and the art department was always at odds with Harold Luce. But Pood is not even in the same league with these guys when it comes to carrying out his job. You can bet that Luce would have raised cain.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

el W.C. wrote:

Pood has played the game fairly well with respect to Thames.

el W.C., I followed that "game" (your term) as closely as I could. It seemed to me that G&S were the pawns. Is that your take?

Date: Jul 27, 2005

Could we get an answer to the original question about Dr. Panton?

Date: Jul 27, 2005

LVN wrote:

Could we get an answer to the original question about Dr. Panton?

Ken Panton is still the program director for British Studies. The administration of International Education (all international programs and services housed in the former CICE) was moved to CoAL.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

i can help some on the original question about Panton. he is dean of the honors college, but is still actively involved in the british studies program. he is over there right now. until Hudson left, he still held the title of "executive director" of the center for international and continuing education. when he left Suzy Steen was still there and was the director. but since the CICE was broken up, the international programs area had to find a place. it was located in arts and letters and Steen reports to Pood.

Date: Jul 27, 2005

My former chair told me that Dr. Panton is planning to retire in a year or two. My former chair thought that the history prof who runs The Abbey (Dr. Mackaman?) will run BS after Dr. Panton retires.