Fleming did support the coast campus, even as he was stymied by a lawsuit filed by the community colleges to keep up from teaching courses there.
My understanding has been that Fleming's insistance on equity funding for USM--we are funded at one of the lowest per student levels in the state--was his undoing. He touched a third rail in state politics.
I thought Fleming to be decent. The commission on the future of the university was a prelude to a capital campaign--that's been dropped under Thames. Who ever heard of a college president that doesn't do fundraising. We'll we've got one now.
The Fleming tenure, for better or for worse, was USM's last chance to be a player in higher education.
Amen, querty, about the campaign part. You have to have a vision before investors will fund it. But you are wrong about Fleming being the last to have one. They can't stop the will of the people; nor the progress.
Who ever heard of a college president that doesn't do fundraising. We'll we've got one now.
This is what is so amazing about Thames. There is almost none of the Foundation fundraising going on. That was a huge part of the Fleming job, and Thames just brushes it aside. It would be a huge part of any normal president's job, and Thames has no part in it. Look at the PR releases for funding requests for the old Alumni House - Thames was 100% NOT involved, only Lucas and others. Thames had no part. He's not had any part in normal USM Foundation efforts, and the Foundation has floundered horribly over the years. If you were to saddle any president at any other school with such blatant mismanagement, they'd be out in a heartbeat! That's not how universities are run these days. It is not how USM will be run when someone else, deserving, comes to the office.