Question for Stephen Judd - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Question for Stephen Judd

Date: Dec 1, 2005

jc wrote:

Stephen: What is your view on the antics that Doty has used to push his digital MBA program through? The story about the ad hoc committee and today's story that he went into a committee meeting with another administrator and cast deciding votes that they had no place to cast are the two things I am referencing in my question. I like your posts, and wonder about your thoughts on this situation that is developing. Thanks, jc

I'm pretty reluctant to comment on specific happenings in other colleges -- partly because I always feel as though I just don't have all the information the people on the ground have inside that college. I also believe that if there are "irregularities" or questions about procedure, then faculty in that college (especially senior faculty) need to take the lead in pointing out those problems -- perhaps even referring them to the appropriate faculty counsels. Clearly the College of Business, like most of the other colleges, has internal issues it needs to resolve. Our problem right now is that, given the current state of incoherance in the upper administration, it is no wonder that confusion and chaos seem to have slipped down to the college level.

I think these inter-college issues, while they are quite clearly related to the policies (or non-policies) emanating from the dome, are the responsibility of the faculty in each college to address. At some point, like the Iraquis, college faculties either need to police themselves or devolve into squabbling fiefdoms.

The current climate of "enteprenaurialship" (sp) and the robber baron mentality that is permeating the university is threatening to destroy us. If we don't work together for the good of the whole (starting at the departmental level and working up) then we are going to continue to face divisiveness that is exacerbated by personal ambition and empire building rather than a more generous spirit of community that transcends our disciplinary differences. Faculty cannot completely control this spirit that is being fostered by the administration. Nor can we completely control autocratic Deans who are acting similarly. We can, however, be responsble for our own actions as a faculty and members of a larger community of ctreative intellect that has a more transcendent set of guiding principles for its members.

Date: Dec 1, 2005

As usual, Stephen Judd has some wonderful points. I would only add that perhaps if faculty in one college have questions of procedures, it is not bad to talk to others and to get opinions from other faculty in otherunits that don't have stakes in the issue.

The other day, I had some problems with procedures in my department and called around and got some advice - advice that I took and very much appreciated.

Questions concerning shared governance are also issues for AAUP. AAUP has taken up problems in the past, studied the procedures of shared governance (or lack thereof) and issued statements.

BTW, a faculty senate committee has put together a statement on shared governance (the provost asked for it) and it is based on AAUP standards and guidelines. I should hope that this statement becomes the standard and policy for USM.

Amy Young

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Don't make me come down there!!!

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Amy wrote "BTW, a faculty senate committee has put together a statement on shared governance (the provost asked for it) and it is based on AAUP standards and guidelines. I should hope that this statement becomes the standard and policy for USM."

This is absolutely amazing--that the request should be made. Is the Dome on the run?

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Far Away Alum wrote:

Amy wrote "BTW, a faculty senate committee has put together a statement on shared governance (the provost asked for it) and it is based on AAUP standards and guidelines. I should hope that this statement becomes the standard and policy for USM."

This is absolutely amazing--that the request should be made. Is the Dome on the run?

I've seen a lot of shenanigans over the last couple of years. Just because it's policy (like faculty handbook regarding raises) doesn't mean the administration either reads it or understands it, much follows it.

Is the administration on the run? I would guess (this is speculation), that the Commissioner (to whom Thames reports - not the board) has told the administration to end this well.

None of this has anything to do with the shared governance policy. The request from the provost is simply "checking off a box" for SACS or something and means nothing at all.

Amy Young

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Amy Young wrote:

The request from the provost is simply "checking off a box" for SACS or something and means nothing at all.

That's really sad, because the reason that SACS adopted certain requirements is to ensure that institutions adhere to minimal standards of good practice. Please note the use of the word "minimal." That's a long way from "worl' class."

This suggests that USM learned little from its year on probation, except that boxes need to be checked off & reports filed on time.