I wonder what this whole string of events does to the "conspiracy theory"?

I mean...MSU faculty are shut out of the process...no input. Could USM get worse treatment than this? I guess we could suggest a candidate and then be given the exact opposite of what we want, but that would be a lot of engineering on the part of the IHL.

Invictus wrote:

---

The new commish is going to take the conspiracy theory to a whole 'nother level.

---

When the appointment was first announced most people on the board thought that it ushered in a bright new day for U.S.M.

The article indicates two things that I think are particularly interesting.  The first is that the faculty senate president appears not to have signed the confidentiality statement that advisory committee members were reportedly "required to sign" and the second is that "invited to campus" implies a formal interview for each of the three candidates.  If the former is true, are there no teeth in the requirement to sign?  If the latter is true and the visits are unofficial or at least unapproved, who will meet with the candidates and who will pay for the visits?  Finally, if there is a rogue counter process happening in Starkville in response to the closed MSU presidential search, what changes will the IHL make in the USM search based on these experiences?  Perhaps I misunderstood the article but before this thread veers off on a discussion about Commissioner Meredith (who I believe is being discussed on another thread), it seems like there's room for more discussion here.

As an aside, only 40 candidates and "a lot" have already withdrawn?

Invictus wrote:

---

The new commish is going to take the conspiracy theory to a whole 'nother level.

---

I have expected this, given what i have heard about Meredith from his days in Alabama and Georgia. However, to take Miss State down is to flip the conspiracy theory on its head. Now MSU is feeding at the trough with USM, JSU, et al? That doesn't sound like the extant conspiracy theory at all.

mordida wrote:

---

if mr. lott declines to run for another term then the next president of UM might be a done deal. 

---

mr. lott would make an excellent university president. He worked his way up the academic ranks beginning in elementary school and all the way through college.

One thing to objectively consider is what type of candidate faculty would want and what type is needed.

In my experience, faculty tend to want someone who will preserve the status quo on campus -- someone who will maintain relative pecking orders of programs within the university (keeping pie slices relatively the same) while attempting to increase the size of the pie. This is a safe move, as it means everyone's relative levels of funding and importance will remain unchanged.

What may be needed though is someone who is willing to change the allocation around altogether. Or someone who will force a change in the institution's direction and overcome the stagnation that sets in when individuals become satisfied with the status quo.

Also, faculty typically do not like micromanagement, though in some cases micromanagement is exactly what is needed.

astonished wrote:

---

How about a truly qualified leader, not a focus on managerial skills

---

How do you define a 'truly qualified leader'? An academic with significant teaching and research accomplishments? VP-level experience? Fundraising capabilities?

Seems like SFT fits those characteristics on paper. Be careful what you wish for.

Nor'Easter wrote:

---

When you make decisions in a haphazard, gut-feeling manner, you often end up with a result that is different than what you sought to begin with.

---

Sounds like the administrative decisions over the past three-plus years at USM: haphazard, gut-level, and producing poor outcomes.

Faculty don't mind CHANGE--most of the faculty at USM are from different states or even countries, and have thus known far more change than any local boy can dream of. What faculty members dislike is the CHAOS they have known for the past three years, produced by too few people making too many decisions too quickly with too little input.

Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound wrote:

---

Nor'Easter wrote:
......someone who is willing to change the allocation around altogether....someone who will force a change in the institution's direction....in some cases micromanagement is exactly what is needed.
My word, Nor'Easter, the three things you suggest are precisely what we've been subjected to over the past three years. And you want more of the same?

---

Read on, reader. Check out other posts before you stake me to a particular opinion. My question is What observable characteristics do you want to see in a presidential candidate? Remember how those characteristics could be twisted to fit a candidate of choice (like they were for SFT).