Pood Leaving? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Pood Leaving?

Date: Aug 26, 2005

For goodness sake, let the man interview in peace. (Not directed at you Angeline, just trying to pre-empt what might be coming.) If you like him and want him to stay, then decency dictates silence. If you don't like him and want him to go, then self interest dictates silence.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Is this one of those situations where we need to ignore the golden rule, i.e. don't be a good person and tell them what they are getting into if they hire him?

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Do unto others wrote:

Is this one of those situations where we need to ignore the golden rule, i.e. don't be a good person and tell them what they are getting into if they hire him?

Only if you have a crystal ball. Elliott Pood could be a great man if he would stop worrying every five minutes what people thought about him. He might have shown far differently in a less toxic environment. And he has the best job experience of the three candidates.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Sorry second guess, but I disagree. Pood came here knowing full well what SFT was like--how the reorganization was handled--how the new deans were not allowed to talk with any of the former administration. He probably was broadsided by the G/S attempt, but he showed his true colors then.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

I just want all our colleagues at Ball State to know that Elliott Pood has been the best dean I've ever served under. His loss would be devestating to USM. He's really top knotch--a credit to the academy. Wise, collegial, supportive of shared governance, first rate scholar. Wow!

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Do unto others wrote:

how the new deans were not allowed to talk with any of the former administration.

Not ALLOWED? It wasn't his choice not to talk to Mary Ann Stringer? How do we know this?

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Do unto others wrote:

Sorry second guess, but I disagree. Pood came here knowing full well what SFT was like--how the reorganization was handled--how the new deans were not allowed to talk with any of the former administration. He probably was broadsided by the G/S attempt, but he showed his true colors then.

no one coming in from the outside could really know what SFT was like -- every one of the Deans who came in believed that he could handle the situation and that faculty were over reacting . . . it took being here to understand that we were not exaggerating . . . .

Date: Aug 26, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Do unto others wrote: Sorry second guess, but I disagree. Pood came here knowing full well what SFT was like--how the reorganization was handled--how the new deans were not allowed to talk with any of the former administration. He probably was broadsided by the G/S attempt, but he showed his true colors then. no one coming in from the outside could really know what SFT was like -- every one of the Deans who came in believed that he could handle the situation and that faculty were over reacting . . . it took being here to understand that we were not exaggerating . . . .

Stephen--I am a regular reader, and I have a great deal of respect for you. I also know that it is not unusual to believe that you (an incoming dean) have the ability to handle a situation when others might fail. Still, I'm curious as to whether you have firsthand knowledge about this. And I still say that Pood did not take a stand when he should have done so. I do have firsthand knowledge that he did not try to talk to either Gary or Frank. And I also have talked with more than one of the ex-deans--all have reported that none of them were contacted by these new guys. Sure makes for lots of mistakes.

Anyway--I say godspeed to him--although I can't imagine who Shelby might just annoint.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Angeline wrote:

He's a finalist for a provost position - godspeed Mr. Pood!

That really says it all. The three deans that SFT hand picked the first year have already interviewed elsewhere after only one or two years. Is the IHL blind or deaf not to see the chaos going on at USM? Given the near total loss of middle management and institutional memory, if a dean leaves mid year or with little notice, there are very few senior, respected faculty members who could step in on an interim basis. Things have not hit bottom yet. Please, somebody, awaken the IHL from its sleep.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Do unto others wrote:

stephen judd wrote: Do unto others wrote: Sorry second guess, but I disagree. Pood came here knowing full well what SFT was like--how the reorganization was handled--how the new deans were not allowed to talk with any of the former administration. He probably was broadsided by the G/S attempt, but he showed his true colors then. no one coming in from the outside could really know what SFT was like -- every one of the Deans who came in believed that he could handle the situation and that faculty were over reacting . . . it took being here to understand that we were not exaggerating . . . . Stephen--I am a regular reader, and I have a great deal of respect for you. I also know that it is not unusual to believe that you (an incoming dean) have the ability to handle a situation when others might fail. Still, I'm curious as to whether you have firsthand knowledge about this. And I still say that Pood did not take a stand when he should have done so. I do have firsthand knowledge that he did not try to talk to either Gary or Frank. And I also have talked with more than one of the ex-deans--all have reported that none of them were contacted by these new guys. Sure makes for lots of mistakes. Anyway--I say godspeed to him--although I can't imagine who Shelby might just annoint.

Still, I'm curious as to whether you have firsthand knowledge about this.

He was very clear in the interview for Dean that he believed that there were solutions for every crisis, that it was just a matter of good management. And he insisted that although we had clearly been aggrieved, we should not let past history prevent us from trying to find the right solutions. So I believe he came in belieiving that it was just a matter of someone coming in who was "objective" and who did not have a dog in the hunt to "solve" the problem. I think it take a certain degree of arrogance to take a job under such conditions -- and I think all the new Deans were arrogant enough to believe that they could fix what the faculty clearly could not . . .

And I still say that Pood did not take a stand when he should have done so.

I've speculated on this before but it is merely personal opinion and some guesswork. When I became Director of Theatre I felt as though there was a huge amount of stuff I did not know -- and I felt surrounded by people who had various agendas who were targetting me. So it was very difficult for me to know who to trust and who not to trust, to know who might be trying to manipulate me and who was telling me information that was unbiased. I am exaggerating some -- but it is easy to multiply that effect the higher up the ladder you go. Add that sense of not knowing which end is up to a President who declares with no sense of doubt at all that these men were criminals and he was going to prove it and you have the perfect mix for freezing the Deans into inaction. That is compounded by the obvious ambition that anyone who wants to be a Dean must have combined with a strong sense of self preservation. Remember, these guys came in believing that Shelby was not nearly as bad as the faculty was saying -- that we taking a fairly extreme but still recognizably conventional example of academic management and making it seem worse than it really was. They are Deans -- they are conditioned to believe that Presidents and Provosts are generally rational people who have the best interests of the institution at heart. I think "blind" is a better term. I would bet that if the same action happened today the result would not be the same in any college at this point -- I don't believe any of the Deans would let such a thing happen unchallenged these days.

Against, just opinion -- and despite everything I've always been a bit of a Pollyanna.

I agree that the Dean should have spoken to Frank and Gary . . . I don't know why he did not.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

It's plausible that the Dean was shocked and appalled by what was happening to 2 faculty in his own college. He'd been here, what?--six months?

Date: Aug 26, 2005

They are Deans -- they are conditioned to believe that Presidents and Provosts are generally rational people who have the best interests of the institution at heart. I think "blind" is a better term. I would bet that if the same action happened today the result would not be the same in any college at this point -- I don't believe any of the Deans would let such a thing happen unchallenged these days.

Not even Pierce???

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Emma wrote:

They are Deans -- they are conditioned to believe that Presidents and Provosts are generally rational people who have the best interests of the institution at heart. I think "blind" is a better term. I would bet that if the same action happened today the result would not be the same in any college at this point -- I don't believe any of the Deans would let such a thing happen unchallenged these days. Not even Pierce???

Can't answer that completely. Pierce obviously knew the lay of the land better than the other but that doesn't necessarily mean he had any better insight into what the percentages were that the President and the administration were wrong about F&G breaking the law. The irony in this is that I actually think the President believed they broke the law -- I think he got incompetent advice from his handlers. Even given his famous temper, I wonder to this day what might have happened had Angie D. not been playing her aggrieved heroine routine on one side and Hanbury playing the legal beagle on the other. If Griffin had still been Provost, if there had been no Hanbury, if Hollinsworth had still been in the dome -- I'll bet Frank and Gary would still be here.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Emma wrote: They are Deans -- they are conditioned to believe that Presidents and Provosts are generally rational people who have the best interests of the institution at heart. I think "blind" is a better term. I would bet that if the same action happened today the result would not be the same in any college at this point -- I don't believe any of the Deans would let such a thing happen unchallenged these days. Not even Pierce??? Can't answer that completely. Pierce obviously knew the lay of the land better than the other but that doesn't necessarily mean he had any better insight into what the percentages were that the President and the administration were wrong about F&G breaking the law. The irony in this is that I actually think the President believed they broke the law -- I think he got incompetent advice from his handlers. Even given his famous temper, I wonder to this day what might have happened had Angie D. not been playing her aggrieved heroine routine on one side and Hanbury playing the legal beagle on the other. If Griffin had still been Provost, if there had been no Hanbury, if Hollinsworth had still been in the dome -- I'll bet Frank and Gary would still be here.

Stephen, I completely agree.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

SJ wrote:
"He was very clear in the interview for Dean that he believed that there were solutions for every crisis, that it was just a matter of good management. And he insisted that although we had clearly been aggrieved, we should not let past history prevent us from trying to find the right solutions. So I believe he came in belieiving that it was just a matter of someone coming in who was "objective" and who did not have a dog in the hunt to "solve" the problem. I think it take a certain degree of arrogance to take a job under such conditions -- and I think all the new Deans were arrogant enough to believe that they could fix what the faculty clearly could not . . ."

I distinctly remember Pood's words to the faculty about the faculty vs. Administration fight going on during his hiring were: "Get over it." I think it was Noel Polk who asked him his views about the chaos during the open meeting with faculty during the interview process. Anyone else remember this? Who will be sorry to see Pood go? No one who was here when he was hired will be.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

angeline--you and i must have been at the same open faculty meeting. i remember the "get over it" comment, but it didn't affect me the same way it must have affected you. when i read comments from folks in the old CLA, i always wonder--was this person in a "privileged" department or "not privileged" department. when people use their real names, i find this distinction often explains their reactions to a number of issues.
i didn't particularly like the comment, but didn't disagree with it, because as a "geezer" i remember the reorganization of the mid 80's. not very popular. was handled much better in terms of process, but the product was the same. administrators rather unceremoniously lost their jobs. very stressful for faculty because we had just emerged from a redefinition of USM as a "teaching only" university to a university where faculty had to publish research. faculty were suddenly told they had to publish to get tenure, and in some cases were given a 3 year extension on their tenure time to get their publishing act together. i know a member of the reorganization committee that was used then, and she said that although they went through all of the "right" processes, the product was dictated. we even had an open hearing in Bennett Auditorium where the VP for Finance yelled at the committee for what it was doing. learned later this was a "staged" protest. in the prior reorganization we had to "get over it" and move on.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

I won't get over it. And I will NEVER forgive the way he treated Harper and Hauer--even if you didn't like the way they did things, that behavior was reprehensible.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

never forget--i assume you're referring to thames. i didn't like the way it was handled either. i felt this university had matured. i also will say that harper did some pretty reprehensible things as well. those with long memories don't forget those things as well. as the expression goes--what goes around, comes around.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

I was at the meeting with Pood and I certainly remember the "get over it" remark. I thought that he was toast at that point - but is was not what the faculty wanted in the dean but what the administration wanted that mattered. All of that being said I do believe that Pood really did not know what he was in for at USM. Who outside USM could have really realized the reality that was SFT. In fact many who were inside did not realize that reality until it was too late. Angeline has made it abundantly clear that she dislikes Pood with great intensity -- and I think that SJ is (as usual) very balanced and fair in his judgement. Pood is not a great dean by any stretch. By no means is he a talented people person like Harper, or a wonderful man of details like Stanley. He is less than both -- and certainly less than their sum. However, I do think that he in the end means well and has been utterly overmatched. We have not had a truly bad dean yet in COAL. Watch out for the day that we do. In the future you might actually wish that Pood was back.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Reprehensible is a pretty strong term, SCM. Dean Harper may have done things that not everyone agreed upon, but he never did things to benefit himself. His decisions and his actions were well-intended and invariably for the benefit of his college or his university. Shelby's actions, on the other hand are invariably for his benefit or for the benfit of his cronies. Big difference between the two men....one honorable....one not.

stinky cheese man wrote:

never forget--i assume you're referring to thames. i didn't like the way it was handled either. i felt this university had matured. i also will say that harper did some pretty reprehensible things as well. those with long memories don't forget those things as well. as the expression goes--what goes around, comes around.

Date: Aug 27, 2005

Never forget wrote:

I won't get over it. And I will NEVER forgive the way he treated Harper and Hauer--even if you didn't like the way they did things, that behavior was reprehensible.

The "he" I was referring to was Pood himself. He would not even speak to Terry and Stan when he saw them in the building.

Date: Aug 27, 2005

I can also attest that at least a year into his reign Pood was literally turning his back when around Harper or Hauer. On several occasions I saw Hauer attempt to be cordial and have his efforts rebuffed. I'm not sure Pood knows all the names of the staff in his College to this day. I don't think Pood is a a bad person I just don't think he has great personal skills and is just an awkward person to start with.

Date: Aug 27, 2005

the psychology of this trail of words is interesting. A lot of bile being deposited for what is most likely good reasons. However the impact of this will be the opposite of what most of you who have posted want - Pood will stay and your level of bile will continue to amass. I'm sure there are those at Ball State who can google with the best of them and will find these trails left through the web. The trails by themselves will not be a sole reason for not getting a new position, but they will sow doubts, questions, innuendo "et cetera, et cetera, et cetera" (Yul Brenner, the King and I) . Don't want to let the students think it is alright to lift phrases.

Date: Aug 27, 2005

obviousman=coastliner, et. al.

Date: Aug 27, 2005

foot soldier wrote:

Do unto others wrote:
how the new deans were not allowed to talk with any of the former administration.

Not ALLOWED? It wasn't his choice not to talk to Mary Ann Stringer? How do we know this?

Note that no one has answered my question. Mary Ann Stringer (former interim Dean of the College of the Arts) was friendly to Pood when he arrived and volunteered to meet with him, telling him she could save him alot of trouble by giving him the lay of the land, essentially. He refused to meet with her. This was, I think, just plain dumb. If it wasn't okay with SFT for them to meet, he could have done it in the dark of night sometime. But he was arrogant and not interested in learning anything from someone who'd been at USM for decades...

My impression of Pood (some of it first hand) is he is not smart and not trustworthy. He is not even very politically saavy. He is, as much as SFT, a reason I left USM.

Bile? I think he deserves it. He may be in a tough spot, but he hasn't handled himself particularly well, and though I've been gone for a while, I don't read here that he's had any kind of a learning curve. I suspect that Ball State will see through him, especially when he spends the job interview telling the same three stories about himself over and over.