Mitchell Berman wrote:

---

Mitch Monitor wrote:
Mitch, I read your third post on this thread with interest. We all appreciate your comments and your past experience in the east seems to give you a different perspective on things at USM. Sometimes we need someone out of our parachial setting to look at us objectively.

I would be interested in your opinions, and I think that others would also, regarding a number of the comments made on this thread.

Specifically, do you think there are a small number of individuals that have controlled USM for a great length of time? Are those that support this view correct? Is it conceivable that those in power have a predetermined plan for our future? Share anything else that you can to provide us a different perspective on our situation.


I'm not sure that growing up in NY has much to do with it, except that I got to see cronysim at it's true world-class best. I do believe that there seems to be a small number of folks who have been highly influential at USM-donors, alum, and administrators--for many years. But even among the "in crowd" there have been power plays and in fighting. All public institutions will have a degree of this sort of narrow "dotted line" influence, but USM seems to have quite a bit of this going on. The next President will have an interesting challenge--deciding which players to keep in the fold and how to manage them (MSU will have the same problem). A clean sweep is not always the answer to institutional reform, for a lot of reasons, as we have seen in the past few years. The "if it ain't broken, break it" approach to change that we have experienced has just not worked in our interest.

I have no clue how the powers that be think of USM or our future as an institution. From the perspective of a faculty member, I would like to see a greater emphasis placed on increasing the quality of our educational offerings, raising the overall quality of our student body, and focusing on some of the traditional core strengths of USM--including the performing and liberal arts, life sciences, social sciences and education. Expansion into what I see as boutique degree programs should be done more cautiously, especially if they are resource intensive and not central and essential to a unit or the university's mission.

One point of pride for my home department is that, under the leadership of the chair, we have focused our offerings, become a more cohesive unit, and phased out undergrad and grad programs that are not central to our mission (maximizing our use of resources). Grade inflation has been held in check, and the quality and quantity of our overall scholarship has increased dramatically. At the same time, external sources of revenue have been sought and received, and we contribute quite a bit to the welfare of the community. This is a model that seems to be working for us--and we have the potential for prospering even more if the next administration adopts a de-centralized unit management approach and has a long term strategic plan to increase the resources supplied (infrastructure and personnel) to the academic units.

We will have a clue about our future if transparency in our operations increases, including budgetary and technology decisions (I think that some effort in these areas is being expended, but we are far from there). Also, if we start to put people and programs first--faculty, staff, grad student, and undergrads--rather than power and influence and parochial turf concerns, we will be headed in the right direction. Finally, if we see a shift from the economic model that the core finance folks espouse (for example, that the acaedmic units should be viewed as potential "profit centers"), that would be reason to be optimistic. There is no doubt that the economics of public higher education are complex and challenging, and that we (from the guy who cleans the restrooms to the President) need to constantly consider costs and revenue generation. However, USM is still a non-profit public trust, and the models used by corporate and private for profit business entities (the world from which virtually all of our current university leaders are drawn) are not fully applicable to USM--attempting to apply them whole cloth has been a source of many of our problems, including our failure to fairly and appropriately compensate faculty, staff, and graduate students.

Please understand that I am not an expert in leadership, finance, or higher education administration (my Ph.D. is in clinical psychology). So take my comments with a grain of salt.

---

Little old lady wrote:

---

How pitiful as a life-work.

---

Webster's Third Cousin wrote:

---

j b on the bayou wrote:
This thread is officiallly CLOSED. No other posts will be acdepted.

Correction #1:  "officially" doesn't have 3 l's.
Correction #2:  the proper spelling is "accepted."
Correction #3:  this thread ain't closed.  ("Ain't" is now in the dictionary, in case y'all hadn't noticed.  Besides, Peter Wimsey was fond of the locution.)

---

j b on the bayou wrote:

---

And, Uncle Bud said to close it.

---

uh oh wrote:

---

if you dont keep talking about the power he has. C Moore is going to get upset. So if you like BG then you might want to not disclose as much

---

Delta Soybeaner wrote:

---

jackson lobby guy wrote:
emma with the long legs...

Ole Bud is no fool.

He had his beginning at USM in the 70's. He obtained good positions early in his career due to his kinship with AKL.

One of these postions, in the 1970's, was as an assistant to SFT when SFT was a VP in charge of regional campuse. He was very loyal to SFT.

FT a nd AKL took care of Ole Bud and gave him new and increased levels of esponsibilty. He carried the laundry for both Lucas and Thames in the 70's and 80's. When SFT was sent back to Polyer Science in the 80's, Bud was loyal to AKL and did his bidding here in Jackson.

Contrary to another poster's opinion, Ole Bud did a good job in Jackson for AKL. He made sure the Gulf Coast was kept on a short leash.

He was always well rewarded.

When AKL retired, Ole Bud cast his lot with Fleming. Bud rode this wagon for a while and then something happened. SFT reemerged as a force, Fleming was forced out, and Ole Bud was among the first with major responsibilities in the SFT administration.

Fleming probably wishes he had never trusted Ole Bud. Bud was a part of the designing of the downfall of Fleming. On second thought, Horace may be thankful to Ole Bud...for getting him out of the USM Circus.

If you can use your kinship to ride three different administrations over a thirty year period, you are not a fool.

If you can retire at the State max with PERS, with 37-38 years, and then go back to work part-time with the same institution at a good salary, you are no fool.

Bud Ginn is no fool. He still has work to do.



As a USM lobbyist, Bud has also been good for Delta State. I think that AKL's years at Delta State solidifed his support for our institution. Bud continued to do things that were beneficial for Delta State long after AKL left the presidency at USM. I know that DS also helped USM with some projects.

A lobbyist is a trader. He has to trade to get the votes that he needs to help his own organiization/institution. Bud has traded well over the years, not only with Delta State, but with State and Ole Miss. USM has benefitted from some of these trades and has come up on the short end on many of them. The short end, many times, was in relation to USM's expansion on the Gulf Coast. State, Ole Miss, Delta State, and others did not want the coast to develop their higher ed offerings. USM H also wanted to keep ths development at a minimum. There were some strange bedfellow arrangements that kept a lid on all initiatives for higher ed expansion on the coast.

Ginn was right in the middle of this arrangement. He has lots of friends and still has lots of connections. He can still be influential in arranging thngs.

---

Ginn and Tonic, with a Bud Lite Chaser wrote:

---

Jax Beer Girl wrote:
We will never recover from Buddy and his time spent "dancing" in the Quarter. What a hoot! A hoot that can be a real take off! You would have to have seen it to believe it..It was something, his power was something! ! !
I've heard stories of Bud and others who shall remain nameless having fun in NOLA, even bringing some of their new friends back to Hattiesburg and setting them up in jobs on campus.

---

Billy The Kid wrote:

---

Bud has brought home a lot of bacon for USM-H. USM-GC suffered for years because of his actions. He was charged with protecting the Hattiesburg business community and USM-H, keeping growth to a minimum at the coast campus, and doing the back room deals for AKL, HF, and SFT.

---

Need To Know wrote:

---

 What I want to know is who currently does the lobbying for USM?

---