The word "referent" is not only unclear, it is also misspelled in my posting above. A careless error my part. Sorry about that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Tinctoris
" He was extremely obscure about nearly everything. (I gathered it was phone tapping-- was there e-mail at USM 14 years ago?) The pre-Shelby cases Gore mentioned all involved criminal acts-- and were prompted by the defense department or the FBI. Interestingly, Gore conceded that some of the people "investigated" were never informed they were being scrutinized, even after the "investigation" was concluded. Hmmm."

---

Very interesting, Tinctoris. On a closely related matter, didn't the original charges against Stringer and Glamser (made in March at the time they were given their walking papers) mention something about telephone surveillance as well as email survillance? That was my understanding. If so, why was the telephone surveilance thing not made part of the evidence presented during the formal termination hearing in May? I listened to the hearing on WUSM Internet, and I heard nothing mentioned about telephone surveillance. Just what happened to that part of the original charges?  

Howdy, Austin Eagle and others. Let me get this straight. (1) Dr. Thames was reported to say that the Glamser/Stringer investigation is the only one that's taken place since he became president, (2) The original March charges against Glamser/Stringer were reported to  mention telephone survaillance, and (3) Lee Gore is reported to say that he is has been involved in four instances of something or other over the past foureen years (I gather he didn't say whether those occurred 14 years ago or 3 years ago). If all of three of those statements are accurate, then 2+2 does not seem to equal 4. Cowboy's Sweetheart is a trusting soul. Perhaps she sometimes takes things university spokespeople say too literally.   

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Tinctoris
"

He was extremely obscure about nearly everything. (I gathered it was phone tapping-- was there e-mail at USM 14 years ago?) The pre-Shelby cases Gore mentioned all involved criminal acts-- and were prompted by the defense department or the FBI. Interestingly, Gore conceded that some of the people "investigated" were never informed they were being scrutinized, even after the "investigation" was concluded. Hmmm."

---

What is significant is that the previous cases all involved criminal acts & were instigated by outside agencies. That meant that the outside agency came to USM with a court order in hand. USM had to comply with the monitoring order.

It is unfortunate that the G&S case didn't go to court in that it would have been a "landmark" case regarding an educational institution's ability to monitor communications secretly without a court order. However, I do understand why the good professors settled without going to court.

It is telling that SFT is now circumnavigating the idea of having future monitoring reviewed. However, having a "committee" to review such situations is pretty lame when other public agencies have to get authorization from a judge.

quote:

---

It is telling that SFT is now circumnavigating the idea of having future monitoring reviewed.

---

I find it as disturbing as the fact that the pronouncements  (a/k/a "communication") seemed to begin with "when" and not "if" future montitoring occurs...

I suspect one of the bigger problems will be that the legal "right" to monitor will be far wider and more generous to the administration than what feels wrong morally, and what most university personnel are used to expecting as far as privacy.  As in, the admin may well get a blessing to do far more intrusive, investigatory stuff than a faculty is used to having done, and will be safe in doing so. 

Even if a review board is a part of that, a review may simply be window dressing, and the administration will charge forward despite whatever vote they get from that review.  (rendering review pointless unless the review board has power to prevent their going foreward.  Good luck on that one.) 

Do you suppose folks at Ol' Miss & State realize that USM may be setting a precedent for them, too?   

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Cowboy's Sweetheart
"(2) The original March charges against Glamser/Stringer were reported to  mention telephone survaillance"

---

FYI, in case you didn't already know, it is illegal to monitor phone conversations between two people who do not know they are being bugged. However, in Mississippi, it is not illegal to monitor a phone call if one of the parties knows about the bugging.

So, if Shelby calls you, watch what you say!

Ah, you obviously possess a legal mind! Perhaps you got a degree under Judge Cooley?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: foot soldier
"Ah, you obviously possess a legal mind! Perhaps you got a degree under Judge Cooley?"

---

A legal mind that hasn't kicked in today yet...and doesn't deal with Mississippi wire taps (if I can help it!!)

Squirming my wayout of bad advice was one of the Judge's best courses...

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Cowboy's Sweetheart
"Originally posted by: Cowboy's Sweetheart " . . . . didn't the original charges against Stringer and Glamser (made in March at the time they were given their walking papers) mention something about telephone surveillance as well as email survillance" Cowboy's Sweetheart posed the above as a question, not as a fact, and she has three more related questions: (1) Was equipment abuse part of the initial (March) allegations?  (2) If so, just what evidence did the administration have that suggested Glamser and Stringer abused university equipment?  (3) How was that evidence, if it existed, obtained? (2) If  equipment abuse allegations were made back in March, why were they not dealt with during the May hearing? Perhaps these questions were answered on the "other board," but I failed to note that. Can we still use the term NO QUARTER on this board? If so, then NO QUARTER."

---

I believe that the telephone surveillance issue is being deduced on evidence that G&S made phone calls in the process of investigating Dvorak. It would not take surveilling the telephone to figure that out -- all of our long distance calls are logged for billing purposes. The numbers of the calls show up on the log and thus are easy to trace.

What is interesting is how this kind of thing is interpreted: highly subjective. Before I got my cell phone I occasionally made personal LD phone calls from my office phone. When the log came in with the minutes and the charge I simply repaid the department. No one ever indicated I was abusing university property.

Now, was the investigation university business? I think one could maintain that it was -- as in senior faculty members of the university attempting to gather information in an effort to uphold the academic standards that we all live by. Incidently, the results of the investigation that Gary did not only went to the AAUP but eventually also were reported formally to the faculty senate in an official senate senate meeting in which Gary actually presented  a handout and cited the evidence. This later became the basis for some of the FOIA requests made by a senate committee.

However, if the university administration interprets this as not university business, it suddenly serves as an example of illicit use of university equipment. Furthermore, if the users did not pay the department back (they probably were never presented a bill) then that reinforces the administration's contention.

But of course, the administration had an interest in this didn't it? That interest was 1) protecting Divorak and 2) sending a message to all faculty and particularly tenured faculty that it was not prepared to tolerate this kind of dissident activity. 

One of the least publicized issues in this whole fracas is the self interest that motivates an administration's decisions. The Board and the public seem all too often to read self interest in the actions of faculty, but not to read self interest on the part of administrators.

But administrators control the system: they control the budget; they control hiring and firing; they control how transparent any of these processes (or any processes in which they are involved) are. They are virtually unaccountable in terms of day to day operations to those of us who are the objects of their administering. We are supposed to assume that every judgement, every decision, every action that they make is completely in the interest of the university and is NEVER motivated by greed, pettiness, ego, lust for power or any of those other self-interests of which the faculty has constantly been accused.

Fat chance. That's why the government of this country is set up as a check and balance system: our founders knew that you can't build a government on hope of human goodness. Instead, our government was built on the acceptance that left alone, every human being will likely operate on the principle of self-interest and it is only when the self interests of individuals and groups are able to openly compete that goverment will work.

This is why shared governance in a university (which is designed to promote transparency and also to make sure that divergent viewpoints are allowed public expression) is so important. I'd contend that without it, corruption and abuse of power is inevitable.

There are always grey areas -- areas of interpretation. That is why there needs to be a formal check and balance system. The administration should never be allowed to decide these things by itself, and that is why shared governance is important.

An aside: it occurs to me that the shift in which academic administrators are beginning to use business terms like "CEO" is a pretty scary one.

The term "President" is interesting. It tends to at least carry with it issues of a broad kind of accountability. Of course, the best instance is "President" of the US -- where accountability is on the basis of popular election. The "President" of the Senate is accountable to the 100 members of the Senate (and by extension, to the citizens of the country). There are more limited meanings of "president", but I think generally the term seems to connote a broader sense of responsibility and accountability.

I think a CEO has a much more limited accountability -- and that that accountability is often "up" (meaning to boards and shareholders) rather than "down" (meaning employees). Of course, in business, as the company does, so the employees do also. 

Unfortunately the  "good" for a university can't simply be measured in terms of profit. In fact, the issue of profit only has meaning in the context of finances sufficient to allow a university to do its primary job: which is not making money but in educating. The money a university makes is only a means to an end.

I think calling people CEO's announces a different world view (in terms of accountability and governance) has come to the university. That world view basically is one that puts faculty, staff in the role of "employees" -- the only accountability an administration has is to keep them employed. Anything else is simply on a "need to know" basis. Otherwise the administration only has to account upward to the the Board and to the other bearucratic systems that represent the institution of the state (as differentiated from the "citizenry" of the the state).  

Given a state like Mississippi with a history of secrecy and the incestuous alliances built on family ties and personal relationships that have tended to dominate its political life, to accept an administration beholden only to a Board that is politically appointed without any method of ensuring that an administration's decision making process is as public as possible is a formula for disaster.   

Secrecy + lack of accountability + power = abuse and corruption

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd

However, if the university administration interprets this as not university business, it suddenly serves as an example of illicit use of university equipment . . . .

Stephen, when I read the above portion of your posting, I was reminded that the usmtalk listserve is used to sell pets, rent houses, sell used furniture, and engage in other personal "for profit" activities that could hardly be defined as university business. I assume that the email system which supports usmtalk is university supported rather than privately supported. I have absolutely no problem with usmtalk, and I fail to see how the USM administration could even remotely interpret what Professor Stringer and Glamser did as an improper use of university equipment. Stringer and Glamser were not using university resources to sell pets, rent houses, sell used furniture, or otherwise engage in activities for private gain. For your university administration to define what G&S did as improper, seems to me to be arbitrary and capricious. Your administration should have been grateful, not threatened.    

 

 

.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" Very excellent stuff, Dr. Judd. However, I believe you are incorrect on the above. The President of the U.S. is most emphatically not selected by popular election. The "popular vote" is for electors & is merely advisory. I thought it was pretty well known after 2000 that the popular vote does not determine Presidential elections. And if the Senate be from the same party as the President, there's really very little accountability in that system, until the next election cycle."

---

The executive branch accountability often comes through the judicial branch - note the numerous lawsuits against the Bush administration to reveal meeting minutes and other information.  The courts take time, however, and much damage can be done in the interim.  The Thames administration - eerily like the Bush administration - is also encountering some forced accountabilty through the courts - we'll have to wait and see if all those lawsuits work.