H.A.-Stephen Judd's Letter - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 13, 2005

H.A.-Stephen Judd's Letter

Date: Oct 13, 2005

The final paragraph is especially well done.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

I wonder why the H.A. put the word respectful in quotes. Can someone enlighten me?

Date: Oct 13, 2005

Dumb wrote:

I wonder why the H.A. put the word respectful in quotes. Can someone enlighten me?

I think they were quoting the use of that word in SJ's letter.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

This is a well-written letter. Dr. Judd points out that the questions were asked with "civility" & that they were received in the same vein. He also points out (correctly) that Dr. Thames' presence at the meeting was a good sign (which it was).

Good job, Stephen. Good typing, too!

Date: Oct 13, 2005

So Shelboo gave his subjects his plans and priorities for the future (next 2 years?)

Name one person that you know that participated in the development of the priorities.

What process was used in developing OUR priorities?

Good letter SJ.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

I know others have bristled at the American's repeated characterization of the faculty "grilling" Dr. Thames. If memory serves, that word was used in their original headline and several times since.

Thanks for at least getting another version in print. Here's hoping that "the community" takes note.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

The relationship between Thames and the faculty is turning into a veritable lovefest.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

Until Death Do Us Part wrote:

The relationship between Thames and the faculty is turning into a veritable lovefest.

Hardly.

And I wish I, among others, had been more aggressive in raising issues of concern with the President. Bill Scarborough was the only one who really addressed the "elephant in the room" forthrightly. On the other hand, I think no one is spoiling for afight right now -- the issue is can we unite enough to put the university back on a working footing even as we continue to be critical of those actions that threaten the university's mission (our view), the teaching and learning climate, or the working environment.

But I sense that the new fac sen needs to get up to speed (many new members) amid some very different conditions than we were in only a few months ago and it takes time to feel out what is right both ehtically and strategically when there are so many basic needs people have that need to be dealt with.

I also think that the new fac sen exec committee, like the former one, is in a data and information colllection mode that will allow us to have evidence to better support our concerns. Not only did this strategy unearth a number of covert administrative initiatives last year, thereby exposing them,but in so doing successfully parried the most egregious.

Anyway, my primary imterest in writing the letter was simply to correct an impression created by the American's headlines and, to some extent, its editorial, that in my view were simply not true.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

ram wrote:

I know others have bristled at the American's repeated characterization of the faculty "grilling" Dr. Thames. If memory serves, that word was used in their original headline and several times since. Thanks for at least getting another version in print. Here's hoping that "the community" takes note.

Good grief people. I hope grilling is what the senate did. SFT deserves to be grilled. Anyone who has ever been in a room with him longer than 30 seconds knows this. Every time I've seen him, he's treated everyone in the room like s***. He thrives on conflict.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

I agree with Stephen Judd's assessment that the Faculty Senate meeting with Dr. Thames was civil. In fact, the only time it seemed uncivlilized to me is when Dr. Thames openly criticized a member of his cabinet who was in the meeting, for apparently making a mistake on Thames's powerpoint presentation. Civility, however, does not mean that senators believe that Thames is doing a good job leading this university.

Amy Young

Date: Oct 13, 2005

Amy Young wrote:

Civility, however, does not mean that senators believe that Thames is doing a good job leading this university.

I would be surprised if the reading public interpreted it that way.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

Amy Young wrote:

I agree with Stephen Judd's assessment that the Faculty Senate meeting with Dr. Thames was civil. In fact, the only time it seemed uncivlilized to me is when Dr. Thames openly criticized a member of his cabinet who was in the meeting, for apparently making a mistake on Thames's powerpoint presentation. Civility, however, does not mean that senators believe that Thames is doing a good job leading this university. Amy Young

Amy, The part of the meeting I found most confusing was SFT's reply to a question from a senator. Bill Scarborough had just finished pointing out how SFT places a high value on grant funding and was disturbed about the large raises for administrators and a few faculty who brought in grant funding.

A senator (new I believe) asked, “Is that our only worth, how much money we bring in”? SFT Thames stated, “No you bring in money by generating credit hours”.

Another senator asked, “ When did you ask for $20k raise for a really good teacher”? SFT said they have, but not for $20K. Do you want an example”? The senator replied, “yes”.

SFT gave the example of the raise given to Mr. Giannini, Director of Athletics.

If I misunderstood this part of the meeting, please correct me.

Date: Oct 13, 2005

name one person, bsides SFT, that was a part of developing the PRIORITIES in his FS presentation for his subjects.

This is a challenge. submit some names of individuals or groups that were involved in setting our PRIOrRITIES for the next two years

The person that submits the most names of individuals or groups that have be involved in SFT's participatory decision making process.....will win the GRAND PRIZE..

Date: Oct 14, 2005

One of the most interesting points of Shelby's presentation was that his priorities did not include preparing for the transition to a new president. It makes me think that he is preparing to campaign for a contract extention under the guise of necessity due to hurricane-related rebuilding. If so, that was one scary part of the talk.

The other scary part was that, when asked by Bill Powell if there "had been any email monitoring during the past year?", Shelby make a joke if it saying "why would I want to do that?" His response, coupled with the demonic look on his face as he was saying it made me think that he was evading the answer and that, yes, email monitoring was going on.

Shelby the snake is still one bad dude, and we'd best not play with him lest we get bit.

Date: Oct 14, 2005

I'm beating a dead horse....BUT.....how many of our 600 faculty members have been involved in helping set the PRIORITIES Shellboo presented to the FAC SEN?

Commentary.....

How do you determine priorities? In many organizzations the leader can identify some priorities. Some are evident, (ex) such as rebuilding the coast campus. It does not take a a super brain to identify some things that need to be done.

If you have a leader that cannot perceive what some priorities should be then you do not have the right kind of leader. But, a good leader also involves others in making decisions regarding what the priorities should be. In our case it should be the faculty, staff, and the entire academic community.

Finally, an objective needs assessment, not slanted toward the leader (president) or the others (faculty, staff, and entire academic community) should be conducted. This should be a broad based and should include those identifed above and a cross section of the stakeholders of the service area.

But we are blessed with a leader that can think for us, knows all, does all, and controls all. We really don't have to do anything.

We would be much better if we could paraticipate in the simple model presented above.

Date: Oct 14, 2005

coastliner wrote:

how many of our 600 faculty members have been involved in helping set the PRIORITIES Shellboo presented to the FAC SEN? .

An equally important question is this: Were those priorities different from or the same as those communicated to SACS?

Date: Oct 14, 2005

coastliner, where you been, son? This is called lack of "shared governance" and is the heart of the faculty's struggle with SFT.

Date: Oct 14, 2005

Over 600 faculty members?

Date: Oct 14, 2005

Just pull back the curtain, see the little man with the wheel. Knows all, sees all, passes out the edicts...why do us little "folks" have to set priorities, HE knows what the constituents want, after all they are HIS cronies. Who needs to ask?

NOTHING has changed. I agree, we know he is a snake. Joking about email? Please. When so many lives were exposed and personal liberties trashed. I think no one should be surprised by this so called extension of the olive branch. It is nothing but the same old hemlock.

Date: Oct 14, 2005

Wher has the coastliner been? I have been observing SFT since the 1970's.

Just trying to point out to you folks that there will NEVER be any participatory decicion making in the Thames era. I've done my time on the line and in the trenches.

No one can present one name, other than SFT's cronies, that has participated in developing the PRIORITIEs for USM.

That is my point.

Set back....try to ride it out....hope there will not be a contract extension.....and two years from now....think about where you may be.

Date: Oct 15, 2005

Flying Monkey wrote:

Just pull back the curtain, see the little man with the wheel. Knows all, sees all, passes out the edicts...why do us little "folks" have to set priorities, HE knows what the constituents want, after all they are HIS cronies. Who needs to ask? NOTHING has changed. I agree, we know he is a snake. Joking about email? Please. When so many lives were exposed and personal liberties trashed. I think no one should be surprised by this so called extension of the olive branch. It is nothing but the same old hemlock.

Brilliant and accurate.

Date: Oct 15, 2005

Waffle wrote:

Were those priorities different from or the same as those communicated to SACS?

Speaking of SACS . . . Our distance learning situation must be dramatically different since the hurricane. Shouldn't it require a new review?

What we are doing right now in Gulfport is highly suspect with respect to facilities. The lack of faculty offices must be a problem for quality.

Date: Oct 16, 2005

Play it again, Sam wrote:

Speaking of SACS . . . Our distance learning situation must be dramatically different since the hurricane. Shouldn't it require a new review?
What we are doing right now in Gulfport is highly suspect with respect to facilities. The lack of faculty offices must be a problem for quality.

On one hand, the USM distance learning situation has changed dramatically, as has that at nearly every other institution in the Southeast. On the other hand, SACS made some special accomodations to make it easier for institutions to roll out distance learning offerings to help displaced students.

On the third hand, USM is now going to enter a regular self-study cycle (unless SACS allows an "emergency" stay of execution), so any changes in the siutation at USM-Gulf Coast (or Hattiesburg for that matter) will have to be considered.

So I now have a question for USM SACsters: Will the regular self-study review that was to begin this spring (IIRC) be delayed due to "storm related issues?" USM seems to have some admins that are masters at getting accreditation reviews postponed...