A president approved by the faculty senate would have met with the faculty and a committee would have been established that was politically correct covering all aspects of the faculty and staff to determine if we needed insurance coverage.  I am sure Joe Parker would have made and excelent chair person.  Sub-committees would have been created so that all employees of all campuses would have had input.  We would have had numerous meetings to review expendable buildings, adequacy of amounts of insurance needed, determination of our greatest risks, discussions of all eligible insurance companies allowed to transact business in Mississippi, review of deductables, and many other financial related discussions.  An agenda af that magnitude for a faculty committee would have taken at least 5 years to reach a reasonable conslusion.  OH WHAT A MESS WE WOULD HAVE HAD!!!!!!!

A couple of points:

The gratuitous attack on Joe Parker is uncalled for and ugly.

The insurance was in force, if I recall correctly, prior to the Thames administration. One of you old hands can correct or verify.

Faculty are not normally involved in decisions about infrastructure. Not their job. Most of them don't want it to be their job. "Shared governance" refers to academic issues, not things like paving and building, although faculty will have and express opinions on these issues. This poster or poster reveals a surprizing degree of ignorance. "Shared governance " for instance, would have meant that the decision to go from nine colleges to five would have been carefully thought through and studied, and the nine deans would not have been publicly fired with no notice. We might even still have our wonderful College of the Arts and our outstanding College of Nursing (and their outstanding deans.)

DJ wrote:

---

According to an article in the Breaking News on the HA website tonight, LVN is correct. Shelby is taking credit for "not cutting" the insurance. The article (link below) indicates it was in force pre-SFT.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS01/60210001

---

And guess who the insurance agent was for 2005.

LVN wrote:

---

The insurance was in force, if I recall correctly, prior to the Thames administration. One of you old hands can correct or verify.

---

10 points for LVN and Gryffindor. Insurance was introduced by Fleming when all the new construction started on the coast.

If Thames had initiated the policy, be certain that it would have come out in the American's story. What Thames gets credit for is "one cut ... he didn't make."

Insurance saves USM after storm
By Rachel Leifer y Rachel Leifer

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060211/NEWS01/602110302/1002

I am not on the faculty. However, I do know the Parkers, and I did not understand how Joe's name got thrown into that post. The poster seemed to be exercising some personal animosity rather than "critical thinking" himself.

I notice you didn't defend the poster's ignorance of what shared governance is actually about. Unless you are the poster?

LVN wrote:

---

A couple of points: The gratuitous attack on Joe Parker is uncalled for and ugly. The insurance was in force, if I recall correctly, prior to the Thames administration. One of you old hands can correct or verify. Faculty are not normally involved in decisions about infrastructure. Not their job. Most of them don't want it to be their job. "Shared governance" refers to academic issues, not things like paving and building, although faculty will have and express opinions on these issues. This poster or poster reveals a surprizing degree of ignorance. "Shared governance " for instance, would have meant that the decision to go from nine colleges to five would have been carefully thought through and studied, and the nine deans would not have been publicly fired with no notice. We might even still have our wonderful College of the Arts and our outstanding College of Nursing (and their outstanding deans.)

---

We can always count on LVN to be sane, sensible, informed, and eloquent.  LVN, have you ever thought of running for President?  (And I don't mean simply of USM.)

USM Sympathizer wrote:

---

LVN, have you ever thought of running for President?  (And I don't mean simply of USM.)

---

If I can be President of some organization that allows the wearing of jeans and fuzzy slippers to official functions, then I'm all for it!

Actually, I'm already President of the Anna J. Fan Club, and that keeps me pretty busy. Well, actually, I'm co-prez -- the other grandma shares the honors. (But I'm the Bubbe.)

Insurance Agent 0006 wrote:

---

DJ wrote: According to an article in the Breaking News on the HA website tonight, LVN is correct. Shelby is taking credit for "not cutting" the insurance. The article (link below) indicates it was in force pre-SFT. http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS01/60210001 And guess who the insurance agent was for 2005.

---

This is a classic example of faculty logic.The fact that the insurance was in force when Thames took office means nothing .Each year is an independent event in the world of casulty insurance.To the credit of the Thames administration,he chose to insure heavily while many other schools did not.He should be proud of making a good business decision and so should the faculty and student body. In my humble opinion the faculty doesn't live in the real world.

Small businessman wrote:

---

To the credit of the Thames administration,he chose to insure heavily while many other schools did not.He should be proud of making a good business decision and so should the faculty and student body. In my humble opinion the faculty doesn't live in the real world.

---

To the credit of the Thames administration, they chose to continue to insure university property ("heavily" is a your adjective) when other institutions chose to use that portion of their budgets differently. Of course, MSU or UM can probably expect a massive bail-out from the Legislature in the event of a natural disaster. Moreover, none of the other state universities have the "exposed" property (e.g., Gulf Park or GCRL) that USM maintains.

Is making a decision to spend money on insurace rather than faculty salary a "shared governance" decision?  Before the "village Idiot" that always says that the legislature specifies the amount of money for campus salary increases in its funding every year, addresses the question, let me explain that evey president has the discretion to supplement the compensation increase in allocating  other oparational funds.  Back in the 90's when funding was good, the "faculty darling," Horace Fleming, chose to put money in technology while UM and MSU put their excess funds into salary.  In those years USM average faculty salary went from number one in Mississippi to number 3.  Th VI obviolsly is not a Math Prof.  If you were number one and everone got the same percentage increase, you would remain number one.

And what truth would that be, dearie? The truth that you had nothing better to do tonight than dig up an old thread in order to start something?

My guess is that we didn't have a choice.  It's not a situation where UM or MSU could expect a bigger bail-out from the state, it's just that they probably have a bigger unrestricted endowment to depend on...thereby choosing to be self-insured to a greater extent.

After this administration, we need everyone to get together and realize that we are truly on the same page & hoping for better things all around.  Some just have different priorities, and that's ok.  To be a comprehensive university means joing together for the common good.  A new admin can make that happen.

The insurance was in force, if I recall correctly, prior to the Thames administration. One of you old hands can correct or verify.

You can bet one thing:  Tiny Thames will take credit for any and all.  He didn't have a damned thing to do with our insurance protection.  This little twerp is an absurdity and a pimple on the world.  A self-serving twit.