RECONSTRUCTION??? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 12, 2005

RECONSTRUCTION???

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Um..... what are you talking about? What's your point?

Date: Aug 14, 2005

after a war....and we have been in a war.....there is a period of RECONSTRUCTION...

Planning how to rebuild USM may be something that WE need to address.

IS ANYTHING BEING DONE BY ANYBODY OR ARE WE JUST WAITING ON THE NEW CARPETBAGGERS?

Date: Aug 14, 2005

coastliner wrote:

after a war....and we have been in a war.....there is a period of RECONSTRUCTION... Planning how to rebuild USM may be something that WE need to address. IS ANYTHING BEING DONE BY ANYBODY OR ARE WE JUST WAITING ON THE NEW CARPETBAGGERS?

I'm still not sure what you suggest be done, coastliner. The power still rests with the IHL Board. They now have a new governance system where an academic evaluates the president and advises them. The Faculty Senate is alive and well. It will make sure the faculty participate in providing input in decisions. Faculty have already had input in the strategic plan; a plan that caused the Board to revise the plan they constructed without faculty input.

Faculty Senate, Academic Council, Graduate Council and the local AAUP are all ready and waiting for a national presidential search to begin. We wait for Commissioner Meredith to get on board and lead this train out of this dark tunnel.

All of this will be done while faculty teach, do research and service, work on the next SACS review, search for positions elsewhere and rebut letters in the press attacking faculty and rational thinking. Do you have others items you want to put on their plate?

Date: Aug 14, 2005

READY AND "waiting" for more top down "leadership" to lead us
to the promised land.

There must be those on the Faculty Senate, the Academic Council, the Graduate Council, the AAUP, other faculty members and interested parties that see that WAITING may not be the thing to do.

IT APPEARS THAT BEING PROACTIVE, TAKING THE INITIATIVE TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR REBUILDING, WOULD BE PRUDENT. A GROUNDS ROOTS PARTICIPATORY DECISION MAKING GROUP COULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME DIALOGUE AND REACH SOME CONSENSUS ON MAJOR ISSUES BEFORE USM HAS NEW LEADERSHIP.

CONFUSED....MAYBE I'M THE ONE THAT'S CONFUSED. I DO THINK THAT I REMEMBER THAT THE USM FACULTY HAS BEEN ASKING FOR A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE.....SO NOW YOU HAVE IT.....SEIZE IT...SOMEBODY STEP FORWARD!!

OR THEN AGAIN, THERE MAY NOT BE ANYONE BELOW THE "ADMINISTRATION LEVEL" THAT CAN PROVIDE LEADERSHIP.....LET'S SEE.

ENOUGH SAID.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

The work continues as it always has. Committees meet, ideas, proposals and policies are drawn up. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Your use of UPPER CASE writing makes it sound as though you are more interested in cryung fire in a theatre than in actually contributing anything useful.

If you are so all fired concerned, then I suggest you actually put yourself in a position to do something. Otherwise, please stop harranging -- it is annoying and is generally counter productive, if your intention sare to actually spur people to action.

Incidently, I've discovered that "inspirational" leaders (if that is what you aspire to be) tend not to hide behind a veil of anonymity. You rant might mean more if people understood what your personal connection to this issue is . . . . and what stake you have in it and what you might stand to gain or lose.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

The work continues as it always has. Committees meet, ideas, proposals and policies are drawn up. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Your use of UPPER CASE writing makes it sound as though you are more interested in cryung fire in a theatre than in actually contributing anything useful. If you are so all fired concerned, then I suggest you actually put yourself in a position to do something. Otherwise, please stop harranging -- it is annoying and is generally counter productive, if your intention sare to actually spur people to action. Incidently, I've discovered that "inspirational" leaders (if that is what you aspire to be) tend not to hide behind a veil of anonymity. You rant might mean more if people understood what your personal connection to this issue is . . . . and what stake you have in it and what you might stand to gain or lose.

Ditto, thank you.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

in lower case for sj

having spent over 50 years in education, with three decades as a usm faculty member, has given me some sense of what may need to happen.
i am not saying that nothing is happerning, that busines as usual is not taking place, and that there are no good ideas being discussed.

what i am saying is that it is time for those of you that are left....business as usual is not enough....."it is time to think out of the box." .... i am no longer there but i will always consider usm to be my institution and i have grieved because of the decimination that has taken place since 2002.

sj. when you eyesight falters sometimes it is easier to see upper case letters than lower place letters....i also think that it is good way to make a point.

just some discussion......is there a need for new and agressive dialogue regarding the issues that usm faces, from what type leader you desire to what the mission of the university shall be.....and how should the university be organized to fulfill its mission.

a coalition of all interested parties, participating in open discussion, could have some impact on where usm will go in the future.

will it happen? i don't know. if you continue business as usual.....i predict that it will not.

sure wish i knew how to use bold letters.....i would have used it with the word coalition....maybe someone can let me know how to use bold letters....

i'll say no more....for now!

Date: Aug 14, 2005

Coastliner is clearly on the side of right. It is not smart to slam someone just because of the size of their font. I've noticed that as of recently the good guys are being slamed by the gooder guys just for expressing legitimate opinions. Now cut it out.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

Polyonymous wrote:

Ditto, thank you.

Including the anonymity part?

Date: Aug 14, 2005

I agree with Stephen on this one. I also fail to see how Stephen's answer could be construed as a "slam." If someone thinks more needs to be done, then that person should indeed volunteer to do something. Such an offer could even be made fairly anonymously via the webmaster. And "netiquette" does actually equate capitals with shouting. If one needs larger type, one can adjust one's own screen with the View option. In fact, this option makes it counterproductive to write one's own message in a larger font.

Jameela

Date: Aug 14, 2005

anon wrote:

Including the anonymity part?

Yup, you and we both anon. Doing our best in a crazy situation.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

just trying to help you guy's out. hope you are not this hard on every anonymous person that tries to make suggestions or offer different points of view.

i have yet to see a post with a comment about the substance of my comments which started with a need for reconstruction..... so i guess things are not really that bad anymore....no reconstruction needed.... the new organizational scheme of sft must be fitting your needs.

i now assume that everybody that should be involved is involved and there is no need to seek a coalition of all groups to have new dialogue.

don't shoot the messenger....listen a little more attentively than sft does.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

coastliner wrote:

i have yet to see a post with a comment about the substance of my comments which started with a need for reconstruction..... so i guess things are not really that bad anymore....no reconstruction needed.... the new organizational scheme of sft must be fitting your needs.

i now assume that everybody that should be involved is involved and there is no need to seek a coalition of all groups to have new dialogue.

don't shoot the messenger....listen a little more attentively than sft does.

Well, actually, you started from the assumption that the war is over, which it isn't. Without a starting point, any discussions about strategy are counterproductive. Thus the substantive comments that actually have been posted are either requests for clarification or comments about how much is actually being done, and done along the only lines that are reasonably open to action. To say, as you do, that everyone is capitulating because you haven't had an answer you liked is to commit the either-or fallacy.

If I can say this is as gently as possible, it may be your own tone and attitude that are the problem, not how you are being answered.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

thanks utt anon for your gentleness.

i am lucky that i don't have to face what most of you have to face. i still see no reason to not plan for reconstruction before the war is over...lincoln(and others) did.

don't overlook any possible solutions.....sometimes it is hard to understand someone's tone without hearing their voice.... usm needs every bit of help they can get....no matter where it comes from...

and good luck to all of you.

I'm watching the waves hit the shore while many of you are seeking solutions to your problems at usm.....was just trying to offer some new ideas.

checking out!

Date: Aug 14, 2005

Thanks to you for your good attitude, coastliner. We hope you will find some way to help.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

I once read that brother will rise up against brother. I hope that is not happening here.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

coastliner wrote:

thanks utt anon for your gentleness. i am lucky that i don't have to face what most of you have to face. i still see no reason to not plan for reconstruction before the war is over...lincoln(and others) did. don't overlook any possible solutions.....sometimes it is hard to understand someone's tone without hearing their voice.... usm needs every bit of help they can get....no matter where it comes from... and good luck to all of you. I'm watching the waves hit the shore while many of you are seeking solutions to your problems at usm.....was just trying to offer some new ideas. checking out!

Coastliner, It's refreshing to see someone who clearly wishes the faculty good will instead of negative anti-faculty comments. Although I saw no evidence of this, I hope you did not think Jameela nor Stephen were negative. I always find their comments intelligent and thoughtful. Sometimes it easy to rush out and judge the "trolls" who constantly lirk on this board, especially when a new name pops up. Please don't judge us to harshly nor label us as unwilling to listen.

I see your comments on "reconstruction" interesting. Your comments mentioned Lincoln, but respectfully, Lincoln was the President. He was in a position to develop and implement a plan for reconstruction. The faculty is in a position of having SFT another two years. The war is not over and the planning for "reconstruction" will have to have involvement from IHL, the Faculty Senate and the various Councils, committees and the current deans and yes the faculty in general.

With all due respect, I must agree with other readers above that the faculty is doing everything they can (Faculty Senate, Academic and Graduate Council) I will however, listen to the experience of our elder statesmen (and women) who can help. Please continue to check in every once in a while and offer your comments. You're right, we need all the help (and support) we can get.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

Thanks everyone for some excellent comments.

Coastliner I do apologize if I seemed abrupt or dismissive. I do tend to take some umbrage at the implication that many faculty members (and particularly the rather considerable group of faculty from all across the university who have been deeply engaged in this struggle for the last three years) have abandoned that struggle. The truth is -- you are right, it is time for reconstruction.

In my experience, many of the critical discussions and planning relating to that subject are occuring in the appropriate places right now -- in departments, on committees, in councils of the university. We have entered a new phase where the struggle has become a bit more recognizably conventional because the administration has lost many of the most energetic figures and much of the credibility that allowed it to wage public war on the faculty. In military terms, we are no longer lobbing longe range artillary shells at distances of twenty miles -- and occasionally hitting innocent people. We are struggling at close quarters with the tools of more intimate combat.

Date: Aug 14, 2005

I'm really not sure what to make of anyone's posts on this thread.

There is work going on (done by committees), but those outside the committees themselves will probably not know about it. There seems to be no one willing to discuss or post to these goings-on. Does this seem wrong to anyone but me?

The entire "war" metaphor is tired and, to be frank, quite disrespectful. This is not a war. This is a substantial difference of opinion within the confines of academia. No one has died, and no one will die as the result of this situation. The Faculty v. Thames is more like Pay Per View Wrestling than a war.

Again, a poster is immediately impugned by board regulars because of some stylistic nonsense.

The CoAL cabal continues to push for a system that will reward all equally and that will ignore entrepreneurial activities that benefit the university. Next stop: AAUP pushes to ignore MS statutes and unionize? Can't wait for salary compression!

Date: Aug 14, 2005

Next stop: AAUP pushes to ignore MS statutes and unionize?

Not likely. I've never heard that put forth as a plan. Why are you waving that particular flag?

Date: Aug 14, 2005

obSERVationAl scieNTist wrote:

There is work going on (done by committees), but those outside the committees themselves will probably not know about it. There seems to be no one willing to discuss or post to these goings-on. Does this seem wrong to anyone but me?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is wrong, but I will say that without a communication function this message board will lose much of its usefulness. I don't understand why some of the regular posters have become so protective of the goings on.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

I agree that some of the regulars seem very afraid to let anyone know what the Academic Council, Graduate Council, Faculty Senate, etc., are up to. It is as if they really don't want people to know what they're up to. My AC, GC, and FS reps never send a report (even a quick one by email) to the college to give everybody a "heads up."

Besides Myron Henry's FS minutes, I hardly ever see reporting, just that "things are being worked on."

Date: Aug 15, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

I've discovered that "inspirational" leaders (if that is what you aspire to be) tend not to hide behind a veil of anonymity. You rant might mean more if people understood what your personal connection to this issue is . . . . and what stake you have in it and what you might stand to gain or lose.

I recall that a few months ago you and others were vigorously defending the need for some to post anonymously. Something must have changed your mind.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Andrew Johnson's Bartender wrote:

I agree that some of the regulars seem very afraid to let anyone know what the Academic Council, Graduate Council, Faculty Senate, etc., are up to. It is as if they really don't want people to know what they're up to. My AC, GC, and FS reps never send a report (even a quick one by email) to the college to give everybody a "heads up." Besides Myron Henry's FS minutes, I hardly ever see reporting, just that "things are being worked on."

No one is "afraid" to report what the comittees are "up to." It is SUMMER and the work being done is informal and won't really become known to all of us until the various committee and groups gather in the fall to make reports.What is happening on this particular thread right now is a couple of persons writing under "noms" -- few of which have been ever seen before on this board -- are sewing discord and distrust among faculty and staff. I'll be blunt -- you are asses using this board to stir up trouble.

For Anon.

I have no problem with people who have genuine reasons to be afraid to write under noms. But this is not what is presently occuring in too many instances. People are using noms not to protect themsevles from overzealous administrators, but to conceal their identities because if their identities were known it would be clearer that ther motivations are not to conduct discussion and exchange information and questions but to make trouble.

This tactic is now well defined on this board. I'll out it when I see it. In other places, it is sometimes called "disinformation."

One more potential result of this tactic is that in a period of little earth shattering events more and mre of these kinds of posts not only discredit the board, but discourage the many legitimate posters from using it.

You have my sincerist contempt. People who genuinely have been on the front lines for the past three years (on both sides I might ask) pretty much know one another both corporally and virtually. So you aren't fooling anyone about hiding your identity or the reasons for it.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

in his blunt comment i hope that the "asses" term that sj used to describe the anonymous contributors to this board was intended as an acronym for:

a nonymous
s enders of
s incere
e fficacious
s entiments

i know that the posts that i have submitted, even though they have been few in number, have been intended to bring about dialogue regarding what i beleive to be important topics and issues.

there are a great number of people out here (retired, moved on) that were in the trenches at usm for a long time. just because we are gone and don't know everything that is going on does not mean that we do not continue to have the best interests of usm in our hearts.

my basic message to you has been.....get better organized....have groups and individuals form a coalition of persons with people that have the best interests of usm as their goal...plan...plan....plan.....don't assume that waiting for a new leader (at the ihl or on campus) will solve the "stepchild" problem that usm has had for years....and don't be bashful about presenting proposals(even without the approval of the administration) that have been developed in a participatory manner by heterogenous groups and individuals. there is strength in numbers.

don't assume that every anonymous to this board contributor is an adversary!

still in the lower case.....checking out for now.....may be "coming out" or maybe not...may stay with the asses.

sincere people working with sincere people, and more sincere people, and more sincere people, and more sincere people developing worthy goals and plans for betterment of our institution have a better chance of success than individuals and groups that are working only in their own arena. (coastliner)

Date: Aug 15, 2005

coastliner wrote:

in his blunt comment i hope that the "asses" term that sj used to describe the anonymous contributors to this board was intended as an acronym for: a nonymous s enders of s incere e fficacious s entiments i know that the posts that i have submitted, even though they have been few in number, have been intended to bring about dialogue regarding what i beleive to be important topics and issues. there are a great number of people out here (retired, moved on) that were in the trenches at usm for a long time. just because we are gone and don't know everything that is going on does not mean that we do not continue to have the best interests of usm in our hearts. my basic message to you has been.....get better organized....have groups and individuals form a coalition of persons with people that have the best interests of usm as their goal...plan...plan....plan.....don't assume that waiting for a new leader (at the ihl or on campus) will solve the "stepchild" problem that usm has had for years....and don't be bashful about presenting proposals(even without the approval of the administration) that have been developed in a participatory manner by heterogenous groups and individuals. there is strength in numbers. don't assume that every anonymous to this board contributor is an adversary! still in the lower case.....checking out for now.....may be "coming out" or maybe not...may stay with the asses. sincere people working with sincere people, and more sincere people, and more sincere people, and more sincere people developing worthy goals and plans for betterment of our institution have a better chance of success than individuals and groups that are working only in their own arena. (coastliner)

No Coastliner -- I definitely don't regard you as being among the asses as you have maintained (as far as I can tell) a consistent nom which invites and enables dialogue.

As far as the organization -- I think we all wish for better organization. It has been a consistent theme of discussion on the board and off. But we do the best we can -- I think one reason the committee and council structure will become more important than ever during this period is that they are already organized.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

coastliner wrote:

my basic message to you has been.....get better organized....have groups and individuals form a coalition of persons with people that have the best interests of usm as their goal...plan...plan....plan.....don't assume that waiting for a new leader (at the ihl or on campus) will solve the "stepchild" problem that usm has had for years....and don't be bashful about presenting proposals(even without the approval of the administration) that have been developed in a participatory manner by heterogenous groups and individuals. there is strength in numbers.

sincere people working with sincere people, and more sincere people, and more sincere people, and more sincere people developing worthy goals and plans for betterment of our institution have a better chance of success than individuals and groups that are working only in their own arena. (coastliner)

Coastliner:

I don't think anybody's quarreling with your basic message. As others have stressed, however, you need to realize that the faculty's organizations and institutions are alive and well and have been doing their best to formulate plans which can best serve the educational interests of this area. It is important to stress that SFT is not alone in trying to thwart and circumvent the efforts of the various faculty bodies; other administrators, and IHL, have done their part to undermine the professional authority and input of the faculty--creating the primary motivation for the growing exodus of faculty.

As for cooperating with "outside" groups, there have been many invitations, by faculty organizations, and on this board, for members of the community to meet and confer with faculty. I have personally sought out well-connected high-profile individuals whom I have known for years, urging them to join us in the kind of collaboration you propose--I have been surprised and disturbed at their lack of responsiveness.

I couldn't agree more that we need a movement to help move USM beyond this crisis. But I believe faculty have done all they can. We don't know how to find you; but you and others who are concerned know how to find us--we urge you to do so.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Voter wrote:

Coastliner: ... As for cooperating with "outside" groups, there have been many invitations, by faculty organizations, and on this board, for members of the community to meet and confer with faculty. I have personally sought out well-connected high-profile individuals whom I have known for years, urging them to join us in the kind of collaboration you propose--I have been surprised and disturbed at their lack of responsiveness. I couldn't agree more that we need a movement to help move USM beyond this crisis. But I believe faculty have done all they can. We don't know how to find you; but you and others who are concerned know how to find us--we urge you to do so.

Correct Voter. I remember Dr. Beckett, past president of faculty Senate, asking to meet with the business people, but got no response. Dr. Henry even tried to attend the business people meeting at the coke plant, and then moved to Warren Paving. He was given an invitation via phone and then it was taken back. It turned out the meeting wasn't to support USM, but rather SFT's try for another 4 years.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Voter wrote:

Coastliner: I don't think anybody's quarreling with your basic message. As others have stressed, however, you need to realize that the faculty's organizations and institutions are alive and well and have been doing their best to formulate plans which can best serve the educational interests of this area. It is important to stress that SFT is not alone in trying to thwart and circumvent the efforts of the various faculty bodies; other administrators, and IHL, have done their part to undermine the professional authority and input of the faculty--creating the primary motivation for the growing exodus of faculty. As for cooperating with "outside" groups, there have been many invitations, by faculty organizations, and on this board, for members of the community to meet and confer with faculty. I have personally sought out well-connected high-profile individuals whom I have known for years, urging them to join us in the kind of collaboration you propose--I have been surprised and disturbed at their lack of responsiveness. I couldn't agree more that we need a movement to help move USM beyond this crisis. But I believe faculty have done all they can. We don't know how to find you; but you and others who are concerned know how to find us--we urge you to do so.

This is the kind of thoughtful, intelligent, and well-written reply that so often makes this board a pleasure to read. Thanks, Voter!