MSU Presidential Search Thread - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 21, 2006

RE: MSU Presidential Search Thread

Date: Mar 21, 2006

At least one newspaper, the Clarion-Ledger, is taking this travesty seriously.

Date: Mar 21, 2006

too bad it didn't take our troubles seriously......

Date: Mar 23, 2006

NE MS DJ

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=215558&pub=1&div=News

MSU presidential interviews to start Sunday

3/23/2006 5:14:13 AM
Daily Journal

BY ANDY KANENGISER

Daily Journal

STARKVILLE - Mississippi State University supporters may finally welcome their new president Tuesday ending a four-month search for Charles Lee's successor.

The state College Board is expected to pick MSU's new leader that day.

The presidential finalists will travel to Jackson for private interviews with board members Sunday and Monday. Perhaps later Monday, the board will announce its "preferred candidate" to bring to the Starkville campus for Tuesday meetings with school supporters.

After sessions at the Hunter Henry Center with administrators, faculty, staff and alumni, the board will meet 5 p.m. Tuesday and later hold a news conference to formally announce its choice....

...
Next week's open campus sessions to question the board's "preferred candidate" are really "input after the fact," said MSU Faculty Senate President Mark Goodman, who served on the advisory panel.

"The whole process with the concept of confidentiality has turned the search into a circus," he said....

Date: Mar 23, 2006

I thought the IHL had brought in experienced leadership for its top job

Date: Mar 23, 2006

http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/newsstory.asp?ID=387

BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO CONDUCT INTERVIEWS FOR MISSISSIPPI STATE PRESIDENT

3/22/2006 (Jackson, Miss. ) -

The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) will convene on Sunday and Monday, March 26 and 27, to hold meetings of the Board’s Presidential Search Committee. The purpose of the meetings is to interview candidates for President of Mississippi State University. The meetings will convene at 9:30 a.m. on both days to begin the process in the former IHL Board Room on the 9th floor of the Education and Research Center, 3825 Ridgewood Road, Jackson. Executive sessions will be held in accordance with the Mississippi Open Meetings Act.

The preferred candidate for President of Mississippi State University will be announced via press release following the second day of interviews on Monday, March 27. Once identified, the preferred candidate will be brought to the Mississippi State University campus in Starkville, Mississippi, on Tuesday, March 28, for open, day-long interviews with various university constituencies. The interview schedule is as follows:

7:45 a.m.—8:30 a.m. Breakfast with Vice Presidents, Foundation Board Room, Hunter Henry Center
8:45 a.m.—9:30 a.m. Meeting with Campus Leadership, Parker Ballroom, Hunter Henry Center
9:45 a.m.—10:45 a.m. Meeting with General Faculty, Parker Ballroom, Hunter Henry Center
11:00 a.m.—11:45 a.m. Meeting with Student Leadership, Foundation Board Room, Hunter Henry Center
11:50 a.m.—12:45 p.m. Lunch with Alumni Executive Committee, Correro Board Room, Hunter Henry Center
1:00 p.m.—1:45 p.m. Meeting with Staff Council, Foundation Board Room, Hunter Henry Center
2:00 p.m.—3:30 p.m. Campus and Community Reception, Parker Ballroom, Hunter Henry Center
3:45 p.m.—4:45 p.m. Meeting with MSU Foundation Board, Foundation Board Room, Hunter Henry Center
5:00 p.m. Meeting of the Board of Trustees, Correro Board Room, Hunter Henry Center
T.B.A. Press Conference, Parker Ballroom, Hunter Henry Center

Date: Mar 24, 2006

CL, 3/24/06

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/NEWS/603240343/1002/NEWS01

MSU presidential candidates

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/NEWS/603240384/1002/NEWS01

March 24, 2006

Who'll be MSU's next president?
Rumors abound; announcement near

By Richard Lake
rlake@clarionledger.com

In just a few days, Mississippi State University could have a new leader, yet only a small circle of insiders knows the identities of the finalists.

The secretive selection process has not set well with some.

"We've been fighting this thing ever since we heard about it, and we've been raising as much hell as we can," said Mark Goodman, president of the university's Faculty Senate and a member of the search committee, which is sworn to secrecy....

..."We don't want a candidate who's afraid to stand up in public," he said. "If they're that insecure, afraid they're going to get fired, then we don't want them."...

...If a final selection is not made, the board will continue the interview process.

Meredith acknowledged his own experience helped form his belief that secrecy is best....

"The climate has changed to the point where, in some cases, it could be dangerous for a president to look at another opportunity,"he said.

Meredith said he would not hold it against a president in Mississippi who was looking for a job elsewhere - so long as the new job appeared to be a step up, not just a way out. ...

...Sheldon Steinbach, general council for the American Council on Education, a Washington-based trade group for 1,800 colleges and universities nationwide, said most states conduct the initial search in secret. He said a secret search does yield better candidates, protestations from faculty and the media notwithstanding.

All of this worries Bill Powell, chairman of the Faculty Senate at the University of Southern Mississippi. USM will be looking for a new president by this time next year, when Shelby Thames' contract expires.

Powell said the faculty is worried that a president will be foisted upon them with no chance for researching his or her background.

"We feel that the search for a president of a public university should include an open review of the qualifications of the finalists," he said.

Goodman, the MSU Faculty Senate head, said people on campus feel they will have no connection with the new president, regardless of how included they may have been in choosing the finalists.

Date: Mar 24, 2006

I understand the arguments for a public search. I think that those who doggedly call for an open search are misconstruing candidates' preference for privacy as weakness rather than as a necessary situation vis a vis their current jobs.

If I am a president of a small university or hold a VP-level position at a large university, there is a good chance that looking for a new job will damage my ability to do my current job in the meantime. We know that academia (and especially administration) is fraught with political animals. Why give those political animals an opening to turn your job search into a stick to beat you with?

A small university president who is doing a good job at his or her current position and who looks for a new job may offend his or her current alumni base, even if the current situation is a good one. If that individual is not selected for a job at a bigger university, then he or she must return to his or her small university presidency and face the potential wrath fo angry alumni, faculty, staff, and students. By publicizing searches, you forcecandidates' hands, which means that you end up with candidates who don't care if people know they're looking for a new job. I submit that many people who don't care if people know they're looking for a new job are people who are going to be unable to stay in their current jobs. Do we want someone who is going to be unable to stay in his or her current job? Wouldn't we prefer to get someone whose current faculty would be really sorry to see leave? USM may be a step up for many small university presidents or large university VPs (for the one who gets selected), but what about the ones not selected? Can really you not understand a non-sinister motive for requesting secrecy, given that we often have seen pleas for secrecy when USM faculty were looking for new jobs?

This Mississippi State search has turned into a bandwagon.

Date: Mar 24, 2006

Southern Justice wrote:

I understand the arguments for a public search. I think that those who doggedly call for an open search are misconstruing candidates' preference for privacy as weakness rather than as a necessary situation vis a vis their current jobs. If I am a president of a small university or hold a VP-level position at a large university, there is a good chance that looking for a new job will damage my ability to do my current job in the meantime. We know that academia (and especially administration) is fraught with political animals. Why give those political animals an opening to turn your job search into a stick to beat you with? A small university president who is doing a good job at his or her current position and who looks for a new job may offend his or her current alumni base, even if the current situation is a good one. If that individual is not selected for a job at a bigger university, then he or she must return to his or her small university presidency and face the potential wrath fo angry alumni, faculty, staff, and students. By publicizing searches, you forcecandidates' hands, which means that you end up with candidates who don't care if people know they're looking for a new job. I submit that many people who don't care if people know they're looking for a new job are people who are going to be unable to stay in their current jobs. Do we want someone who is going to be unable to stay in his or her current job? Wouldn't we prefer to get someone whose current faculty would be really sorry to see leave? USM may be a step up for many small university presidents or large university VPs (for the one who gets selected), but what about the ones not selected? Can really you not understand a non-sinister motive for requesting secrecy, given that we often have seen pleas for secrecy when USM faculty were looking for new jobs? This Mississippi State search has turned into a bandwagon.

I understand you points S.J., but the names do leak out--the search is really not private. The search committee must talk to references. How do they hire without talking to the applicants superiors and people they work with to understand the peronality and management style? It appears to me the search is "called secret" to keep certain stakes holders out.

Date: Mar 24, 2006

Southern Justice wrote:

Can really you not understand a non-sinister motive for requesting secrecy, given that we often have seen pleas for secrecy when USM faculty were looking for new jobs?

Both universities (neither was in Mississippi) where I taught prior to USM selected new presidents during my time. Both searches were conducted in much the same confidential manner as that being employed by Meredith and the IHL, for the same reasons enumerated by Southern Justice. I don't recall those selection processes being the least bit controversial with faculty. Granted, we weren't concerned with Mississippi back room deals or reeling from a Thamesian experience, but in my experience confidential searches aren't that extraordinary. I'm not defending the process, just pointing out that it's not peculiar to Mississippi.

Date: Mar 24, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

I understand you points S.J., but the names do leak out--the search is really not private. The search committee must talk to references. How do they hire without talking to the applicants superiors and people they work with to understand the peronality and management style? It appears to me the search is "called secret" to keep certain stakes holders out.

LeftASAP, I have to agree with S.J. Yes, the names do leak out but most often it is only the names of the top 4 or 5 candidates. Most of the other lower tier (?) candidates’ names do not get leak thus their anonymity remains. As to the search committee talking to the applicants superiors, I have no idea if in the current MSU process this is being done. In the private sector this is usually done as well as in many other government and university settings and the names are not publicly disclosed. Beyond just the candidate wanting to keep private the information that he/she is looking into another position outside their current organization, their superior/current employer often wants to keep this private also. The reasons are many and among them is to prevent those currently working under the candidate from looking at their superior (the candidate) as some one on the way out and all the potential internal politics and posturing this might generate. Just look around USM at what you see happen when word gets out that someone may be leaving for a job else where. The desire to keep the name of the candidate private is not just for the protection of the candidate but is more often associated with protecting the current work environment of the candidate for both his/her benefit and their employer.

That this may be done to keep certain stake holders out I think is unlikely. Most organizations and universities do not allow the employees or faculty/staff to select the candidate. They do allow the employees or faculty/staff to meet/interview the top candidates or the selected candidate prior to finalizing their contract just in case there may be any significant exception to the candidate that needs to be assessed. Buy in from those working underneath is a critical management condition. With out it an organization will suffer. USM/Thames is a case in point. Part of the idea behind "shared governance" is to ensure this buy in.

Date: Mar 24, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: I understand you points S.J., but the names do leak out--the search is really not private. The search committee must talk to references. How do they hire without talking to the applicants superiors and people they work with to understand the peronality and management style? It appears to me the search is "called secret" to keep certain stakes holders out. LeftASAP, I have to agree with S.J. Yes, the names do leak out but most often it is only the names of the top 4 or 5 candidates. Most of the other lower tier (?) candidates’ names do not get leak thus their anonymity remains. As to the search committee talking to the applicants superiors, I have no idea if in the current MSU process this is being done. In the private sector this is usually done as well as in many other government and university settings and the names are not publicly disclosed. Beyond just the candidate wanting to keep private the information that he/she is looking into another position outside their current organization, their superior/current employer often wants to keep this private also. The reasons are many and among them is to prevent those currently working under the candidate from looking at their superior (the candidate) as some one on the way out and all the potential internal politics and posturing this might generate. Just look around USM at what you see happen when word gets out that someone may be leaving for a job else where. The desire to keep the name of the candidate private is not just for the protection of the candidate but is more often associated with protecting the current work environment of the candidate for both his/her benefit and their employer. That this may be done to keep certain stake holders out I think is unlikely. Most organizations and universities do not allow the employees or faculty/staff to select the candidate. They do allow the employees or faculty/staff to meet/interview the top candidates or the selected candidate prior to finalizing their contract just in case there may be any significant exception to the candidate that needs to be assessed. Buy in from those working underneath is a critical management condition. With out it an organization will suffer. USM/Thames is a case in point. Part of the idea behind "shared governance" is to ensure this buy in.

I understand your point, Coast Resident. I agree with keeping the process secret until we get to the "short list" of the final 3 to 5 candidates. That is when references are contacted and people who know and worked with the candidate must be interviewed for a worthwhile search. Thus the people where the person works start hearing the rumors first. To me it is only being kept "secret" from the stake holders here. The final candidates should be interviewed by more that just the search committee for the very reasons you gave in your post. I just can't see the IHL Board picking the president and then asking for input from stake holders. Do you really believe if something unpleasant is brought up about the candidate the Board would say, "Oh, sorry we will change our decision." ? I don't see how this process will lead to a "buy-in" by all stake holders.

Date: Mar 24, 2006

Sid Salter's blog

http://www.clarionledger.com/misc/blogs/ssalter/sidblog.html

3/23/06

...Something tells me that Dr. Meredith will ultimately be held more to account for the flaws in the MSU search by USM and Ole Miss supporters who see the handwriting on the wall for their schools down the road.

The College Board and no one else is constitutionally charged with the responsibility of choosing a leader for MSU. Dr. Meredith is an employee of the College Board, not the other way around....

Date: Mar 24, 2006

Mark Goodman's blog

http://markagoodman.blogspot.com/

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Keenum Sabotage

The rumors are flying that attempts are being made to sabotage the presidential candidacy of Mark Keenum. One rumor is that Keenum would not have faculty support if chosen president of Mississippi State University. No one can predict how the faculty would respond to any of the candidates since most faculty have been left out of the search process. However, before the secrecy veil dropped on the process a group of elected faculty members supported about 15 people as possible candidates for the position, including Keenum. Plus, news reports indicate that Keenum had the support of the campus screening committee.

Mark Keenum may or may not be the best candidate for the position, but that determination should be based upon his record. Keenum’s qualifications should not be based upon the opinions of those who suppose they can speak for the faculty at Mississippi State.

Mark Goodman
President
Faculty Senate
Mississippi State

Date: Mar 24, 2006

Can anyone tell me why these posters believe and trust the motives and actions of College Board Members, the Board Office, Presidents of universities, Vice Presidents of universities and deans, but think faculty are a pile of crap who cannot be trusted without a time clock? They are so dense that they do not realize that Meredith, all Presidents and Vice Presidents used to be faculty. They want someone to be President of MSU who does not have the courage to announce his/her candidacy. You really believe that someone that devious will make the tough decisions for MSU?

Date: Mar 25, 2006

I do not know who the most credible candidate for MSU's presidency is. I do know that the people of Mississippi "own" their institutions of higher learning and they elect the governors of this state. It is the governors of Mississippi who appoint IHL members, and it is those IHL members who chose Meredith as Commissioner. There is a direct line of authority from the people of Mississippi to Tom Meredith, the man who is charged with selecting the next president of MSU.

Everyone has biases, predispositions, preferences, and prejudices in this process. To suggest that Meredith should subjugate his preferences to those of the MSU faculty is, in a word, ridiculous. Meredith is the people's representative. A poor hire will reflect poorly on him for the rest of his career. Unless he has some sort of "tenure" at the IHL, he will not last if he makes bad choices. He is the representative of the people of Mississippi, for right or for wrong.

Those who question his methods are saying that they know how to do it better, which is a common trait among university faculties. Academia is rife with individuals who claim to know a better way to do anything, from building a pollution-free automobile to tying one's shoes. However, when pressed to "put up or shut up," there more often silence than action. Meredith will make the choice that is best for Mississippi, not the best choice for the MSU faculty, USM faculty, the AAUP at any particular institution, or any other interest group. Just because you cannot understand his decisions doesn't mean that they're not in the best interest of the people of Mississippi. It just means that you are predisposed to another train of thought and cannot reconcile your beliefs with the reality of Mississippi's landscape.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

The meeting of the Mississippi State Conference on April 8 at Millsaps College ("Shared Governance in 21st Century Higher Education") will include a discussion of presidential searches. Lou D'Abramo of MSU, a critic of the "secret search" process currently underway there, is expected to attend and share a first-hand faculty perspective on the issue.

Headlining the April 8 event, which will begin at 9:30 at the Millsaps Leggett Center, is Roger Bowen, general secretary of the national AAUP.

AAUP membership is not required to attend. On-site registration is available, though advance registration is encouraged. To advance register, send a check by April 3 for $10 made out to "Mississippi Conference MS-AAUP" to Gary Chong, AAUP Treasurer, 5155 Wayneland Drive, M-6, Jackson, MS 39211.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Live from PJ's wrote:

... To suggest that Meredith should subjugate his preferences to those of the MSU faculty is, in a word, ridiculous. ... Those who question his methods are saying that they know how to do it better, which is a common trait among university faculties. ... Meredith will make the choice that is best for Mississippi, not the best choice for the MSU faculty, USM faculty, the AAUP at any particular institution, or any other interest group. ...

It would have been a good post, Live from PJ's if you didn't put in so much spin.

1. No one suggested that Meredith subjugate his preferences. Faculty asked to have input into the search process under the principle of shared governance. Input just means information Meredith and the Board can consider in their decision making.

2.Yes, his method is being questioned because having more information before making a decision is better than having less. Don't you agree?

3. How can you assert, "Meredith will make the choice that is best for Mississippi..."? He will be making a decision without the input of important stake holders. Do you have any evidence to back up you assertion? Or do you just believe whatever your leaders tell you?

Date: Mar 25, 2006

No Spin wrote:

Live from PJ's wrote: ... To suggest that Meredith should subjugate his preferences to those of the MSU faculty is, in a word, ridiculous. ... Those who question his methods are saying that they know how to do it better, which is a common trait among university faculties. ... Meredith will make the choice that is best for Mississippi, not the best choice for the MSU faculty, USM faculty, the AAUP at any particular institution, or any other interest group. ... It would have been a good post, Live from PJ's if you didn't put in so much spin. 1. No one suggested that Meredith subjugate his preferences. Faculty asked to have input into the search process under the principle of shared governance. Input just means information Meredith and the Board can consider in their decision making. 2.Yes, his method is being questioned because having more information before making a decision is better than having less. Don't you agree? 3. How can you assert, "Meredith will make the choice that is best for Mississippi..."? He will be making a decision without the input of important stake holders. Do you have any evidence to back up you assertion? Or do you just believe whatever your leaders tell you?

The idea that MSU faculty should have input suggests that MSU is somehow different than other universities in a fundamental way. Last I heard, MSU had the same type of mission that other land grant colleges and universities have: teaching, research, and service, with an agricultural bent. What MSU needs is a quality leader who can manage these functions, energize the alumni base, and support faculty in their teaching, research, and service duties. Meredith can find such a person by looking at his track record, interviewing subordinates and superiors, and independently verifying the performance. What MSU doesn't need is a president picked with too much faculty input, as faculty are notorious for their resistance to change.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Live from PJ's,

While some of your post has merit, your focus is narrow. The reasons for keeping the search secret have to be balanced against the reasons for it not being secret. You have narrowed the issue to be between the MSU faculty and the Board choosing the President. There is more to this picture. If MSU is to avoid many of the problems that plague USM, (which has made people in community very happy based on the axiom that the enemy of my enemy [faculty] is my friend), the new President needs the support and good will of the faculty. MSU is even more diverse than USM in its scope of responsibilities including ag extension and a vet school. To effectively manage this diverse set of employees, the new President needs their support, energy, and good will. Hopefully, their new President understands that you lead faculty rather then beating them with a stick (even though many Mississippians enjoy the sight of faculty being beaten with a stick). Secrecy is the enemy of leadership because trust is a major component of leadership. An open search would be of great importance a new President in giving him/her a bundle of goodwill.

Many of the posts have been from the perspective of the applicant who wants to keep the old job in case he/she is not chosen. The candidate who wants it secret is not willing to risk anything to get the job. Those who would apply if it were open want the job enough to take the risk. It is rare that the applicants for President of a Mississippi university are from a higher-level institution, the applicants either are moving laterally (makes you wonder why) or moving up from a lower level institution. A sitting President at a lower level school who wants it secret has a high probability of being a weak and/or an ineffective President.

Bottom line, on average a secret search will yield a lower quality candidate.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Cossack wrote:

The candidate who wants it secret is not willing to risk anything to get the job. Those who would apply if it were open want the job enough to take the risk. It is rare that the applicants for President of a Mississippi university are from a higher-level institution, the applicants either are moving laterally (makes you wonder why) or moving up from a lower level institution. A sitting President at a lower level school who wants it secret has a high probability of being a weak and/or an ineffective President. Bottom line, on average a secret search will yield a lower quality candidate.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? As is, your post is a generic claim based on casual observation at best. Do you have a national trend to support these claims?

Date: Mar 25, 2006

What evidence do you have to support this claim? As is, your post is a generic claim based on casual observation at best. Do you have a national trend to support these claims?

The evidence I use comes from the same sources as the evidence you presented, experience plus I have called upon some of the management principles I gleaned from the few management courses I took. It would take some time to search and the read the material, but there are many case studies in management about effective management and management styles. Secrecy was not one of the approaches that led to success. It turns out the secrecy and truth are inverse to each other.

There are data being generated that could give more empirical evidence. Florida law requires that searches be open. (This is why Dean Doty is on tape explaining his booze account.) I have only one observation about the process given to me by someone in the Florida system. In her opinion it has improved the selection process and significantly reduced the backroom dealing in the hiring process.

None of what I have posted will change your mind, but it may be of minor interest to other posters.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Live from PJ's wrote:

No Spin wrote: It would have been a good post, Live from PJ's if you didn't put in so much spin. 1. No one suggested that Meredith subjugate his preferences. Faculty asked to have input into the search process under the principle of shared governance. Input just means information Meredith and the Board can consider in their decision making. 2.Yes, his method is being questioned because having more information before making a decision is better than having less. Don't you agree? 3. How can you assert, "Meredith will make the choice that is best for Mississippi..."? He will be making a decision without the input of important stake holders. Do you have any evidence to back up you assertion? Or do you just believe whatever your leaders tell you?

The idea that MSU faculty should have input suggests that MSU is somehow different than other universities in a fundamental way. Last I heard, MSU had the same type of mission that other land grant colleges and universities have: teaching, research, and service, with an agricultural bent. What MSU needs is a quality leader who can manage these functions, energize the alumni base, and support faculty in their teaching, research, and service duties. Meredith can find such a person by looking at his track record, interviewing subordinates and superiors, and independently verifying the performance. What MSU doesn't need is a president picked with too much faculty input, as faculty are notorious for their resistance to change.

I noticed that you never answered any of my questions, Live from PJ"'s. Why do you say having MSU faculty input suggest MSU is different from other universities in a fundamental way? Having faculty input in hiring Presidents and V.P.s is very common. In my opinion "secret" searchers is rather new to academia.

How can Meredith interview subordinates and superiors and yet keep the search secret from this same group? Another posted pointed out this contradiction. It implies that the search is secret only to keep MSU stake holders from having input.

I agree we don't want too much faculty input, but at present there is no faculty input.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Cossack wrote:

None of what I have posted will change your mind, but it may be of minor interest to other posters.

That's a great attitude, Cossack! I am attempting dialogue and you continue to yell louder and louder, ignoring my real and very pertinent questions. I have heard your message, though. You don't want to face the possibility that repeating dogma over and over won't cut it with people who don't share your beliefs or who are not intimidated by basic right-wing/left-wing tactics. Your proof is based on textbook generalizations and your observations. Question answered. Your snide conclusion to this last post doesn't sit well with me and is just another example of why I don't want to be associated with the vast majority of university professors.

In point of fact, I personally think an open process could be better for all involved IF all involved would agree to abide by the results of an open search. From my personal experience in reading a whole lot about university faculties, I can tell you that there are very few things faculties will agree upon. One such thing is that faculties want presidents who will maintain the status quo. Faculties do not want additional responsibilities (even though almost every profession's duties have expanded over the years), more transparency and oversight into their activities (even though internal control is an important function of any institution, whether public or private), or a change in their local fiefdoms (their one-man universes). All of this corresponds to basic and understandable human nature, however, and should not be surprising to see. I do not blame faculty for acting in this manner.

MSU faculty cannot be trusted to act in good faith and follow the outcome of an open process. If MSU faculty were allowed to state their top 3 "wants" in a new president, let's say they name factors A, B, and C as the most important factors in their new leader. Say that Meredith named factors D, E, and F as his most important factors in a new president. Let's say that they sit down and talk but both sides have compelling arguments for their opinions. Let's also say that Meredith publicly states that the new president should have qualities A, D, and E (compromising on one as a show of good faith to MSU faculty). Can anyone here really tell me with a straight face that there would not be MSU faculty who would come out and state that Meredith ignored their request for qualities B and C or that Meredith ignored some of the most important factors in his decision making or that Meredith failed to be inclusive in the search process?

Faculties are never satisfied. They want to have complete and total say in how decisions are made, yet they cannot agree among themselves on anything except the most basic self-preservation and preservation of their status. Look at this board as an example. Everyone unites to get Thames ousted, but then business, psychology, education, arts, letters, science, and other areas turn against each other and have a great deal of infighting and disagreement on anything other than the fact that Thames is bad.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Live from PJ's wrote:

Faculties are never satisfied. They want to have complete and total say in how decisions are made, yet they cannot agree among themselves on anything except the most basic self-preservation and preservation of their status. Look at this board as an example. Everyone unites to get Thames ousted, but then business, psychology, education, arts, letters, science, and other areas turn against each other and have a great deal of infighting and disagreement on anything other than the fact that Thames is bad.

As much as it pains me to admit it, your last paragraph seems to be right on the mark. In my limited experience at other universities, I've never seen as much bitter interdisciplinary infighting as we have at USM. On the one hand, the locals don't much like us, and on the other hand, apparently we don't much like each other. A question for you seasoned veterans: Was it always this way at USM, pre-dating the Thames regime?

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Live from PJ's wrote:

Cossack wrote: None of what I have posted will change your mind, but it may be of minor interest to other posters. That's a great attitude, Cossack! I am attempting dialogue and you continue to yell louder and louder, ignoring my real and very pertinent questions. I have heard your message, though. You don't want to face the possibility that repeating dogma over and over won't cut it with people who don't share your beliefs or who are not intimidated by basic right-wing/left-wing tactics. Your proof is based on textbook generalizations and your observations. Question answered. Your snide conclusion to this last post doesn't sit well with me and is just another example of why I don't want to be associated with the vast majority of university professors. In point of fact, I personally think an open process could be better for all involved IF all involved would agree to abide by the results of an open search. From my personal experience in reading a whole lot about university faculties, I can tell you that there are very few things faculties will agree upon. One such thing is that faculties want presidents who will maintain the status quo. Faculties do not want additional responsibilities (even though almost every profession's duties have expanded over the years), more transparency and oversight into their activities (even though internal control is an important function of any institution, whether public or private), or a change in their local fiefdoms (their one-man universes). All of this corresponds to basic and understandable human nature, however, and should not be surprising to see. I do not blame faculty for acting in this manner. MSU faculty cannot be trusted to act in good faith and follow the outcome of an open process. If MSU faculty were allowed to state their top 3 "wants" in a new president, let's say they name factors A, B, and C as the most important factors in their new leader. Say that Meredith named factors D, E, and F as his most important factors in a new president. Let's say that they sit down and talk but both sides have compelling arguments for their opinions. Let's also say that Meredith publicly states that the new president should have qualities A, D, and E (compromising on one as a show of good faith to MSU faculty). Can anyone here really tell me with a straight face that there would not be MSU faculty who would come out and state that Meredith ignored their request for qualities B and C or that Meredith ignored some of the most important factors in his decision making or that Meredith failed to be inclusive in the search process? Faculties are never satisfied. They want to have complete and total say in how decisions are made, yet they cannot agree among themselves on anything except the most basic self-preservation and preservation of their status. Look at this board as an example. Everyone unites to get Thames ousted, but then business, psychology, education, arts, letters, science, and other areas turn against each other and have a great deal of infighting and disagreement on anything other than the fact that Thames is bad.

Live from PJ's, your post reminds me of another poster from a while ago. Have you posted under other names before? It's no big deal, I have and many other do also. But after reading your last post, I don't see any point in other posters discussing this with you. If I had your opinion of faculty, I wouldn't allow them any input into governance of any institution. I assume you consider the AAUP a union. Would my assumption be correct?

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Live from PJ's wrote:

Faculties are never satisfied. They want to have complete and total say in how decisions are made.

That's complete crap. If it's "shared" it ain't total or complete.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Sad Sack wrote:

Live from PJ's wrote: Faculties are never satisfied. They want to have complete and total say in how decisions are made, yet they cannot agree among themselves on anything except the most basic self-preservation and preservation of their status. Look at this board as an example. Everyone unites to get Thames ousted, but then business, psychology, education, arts, letters, science, and other areas turn against each other and have a great deal of infighting and disagreement on anything other than the fact that Thames is bad.

As much as it pains me to admit it, your last paragraph seems to be right on the mark. In my limited experience at other universities, I've never seen as much bitter interdisciplinary infighting as we have at USM. On the one hand, the locals don't much like us, and on the other hand, apparently we don't much like each other. A question for you seasoned veterans: Was it always this way at USM, pre-dating the Thames regime?

If you are really a faculty member at USM, then you already know the answer to that question. In addition, I didn't see any bickering between departments. All I saw was questionable CoB people (faculty or students?) who post all of those terrible threads on CoB Bull Sh*t assert that Psy made a mistake in making public what SFT did to their searches for open positions. You can't believe what anonymous posters on this board say is always representative of what goes on at USM.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Old Prof wrote:

Sad Sack wrote: Live from PJ's wrote: Faculties are never satisfied. They want to have complete and total say in how decisions are made, yet they cannot agree among themselves on anything except the most basic self-preservation and preservation of their status. Look at this board as an example. Everyone unites to get Thames ousted, but then business, psychology, education, arts, letters, science, and other areas turn against each other and have a great deal of infighting and disagreement on anything other than the fact that Thames is bad. As much as it pains me to admit it, your last paragraph seems to be right on the mark. In my limited experience at other universities, I've never seen as much bitter interdisciplinary infighting as we have at USM. On the one hand, the locals don't much like us, and on the other hand, apparently we don't much like each other. A question for you seasoned veterans: Was it always this way at USM, pre-dating the Thames regime? If you are really a faculty member at USM, then you already know the answer to that question. In addition, I didn't see any bickering between departments. All I saw was questionable CoB people (faculty or students?) who post all of those terrible threads on CoB Bull Sh*t assert that Psy made a mistake in making public what SFT did to their searches for open positions. You can't believe what anonymous posters on this board say is always representative of what goes on at USM.

There's no problem between departments at USM. Let me slap CoB around for a few minutes, and I'll come back and explain that position in more detail. Hang on. CoB, you ********, we hate you. Hey, I'm back. . .

Right.

Date: Mar 25, 2006

Live from PJ's writes

That's a great attitude, Cossack! I am attempting dialogue and you continue to yell louder and louder, ignoring my real and very pertinent questions. I have heard your message, though. You don't want to face the possibility that repeating dogma over and over won't cut it with people who don't share your beliefs or who are not intimidated by basic right-wing/left-wing tactics. Your proof is based on textbook generalizations and your observations. Question answered. Your snide conclusion to this last post doesn't sit well with me and is just another example of why I don't want to be associated with the vast majority of university professors.

Live from PJ's writes

That's a great attitude, Cossack! I am attempting dialogue and you continue to yell louder and louder, ignoring my real and very pertinent questions. I have heard your message, though. You don't want to face the possibility that repeating dogma over and over won't cut it with people who don't share your beliefs or who are not intimidated by basic right-wing/left-wing tactics. Your proof is based on textbook generalizations and your observations. Question answered. Your snide conclusion to this last post doesn't sit well with me and is just another example of why I don't want to be associated with the vast majority of university professors.

However snide my conclusion was correct, I did not change your mind. My other paragraphs were attempts at dialogue where I must not have been clear or attempted to make too many points.

The main point is:

While it may be in the interest of a candidate at the time of the search for it to be secret, it will not be in the interest of the candidate once they take over as president. The president will encounter a level of distrust that will have to be over come. If many faculty feel as strongly about having a secret process as you do about having a secret process, the transition will not go smoothly. Regardless of how much many posters want to believe otherwise, universities are more productively managed by soliciting and receiving the support of faculty. History is replete with episodes where presidents either never had the support or lost the support of faculty and as a result they failed as president. A secret search reduces the support of faculty for the president at the beginning and makes the president's task more difficult.

Assuming you want MSU to be at least as good as it is now, or hopefully better, then you might want to rethink this issue. Given other’s responses to your posts, I think you are running low on credibility. You insist on “proof” by other posters while you provide no proof supporting your positions. Many of the faculty posting here have many years in the profession at various universities. We also keep up with what goes on at other universities through colleagues and reading the Chronicle. If a certain process or management style has failed elsewhere many times, it is highly likely to fail when tried again. Publicly funded universities, particularly those that have a research mission, have a history of open searches with faculty involvement.