LVN,

In answer to your question about expressions and body language: apparently the picture below is the only known photograph of our beloved FS.  It was snapped as FS left the latest meeting of the PUC.

 

 

 

While I do not know the answers to some of these questions, I have become increasingly concerned that the real intent of the PUC is being forgotten.  It was instituted to bypass or dilute the appropriate bodies through which the administration is to deal with faculty.  In addition, it was/is nothing more than a PR stunt from start to finish.  If SFT intended to rectify matters, he would use the appropriate channels.  Therefore, the faculty and staff need to marginalize the PUC, rather than legitimize it.  In my opinion, bringing up major issues there in the hope of seeing SFT squirm or exposing his true nature in fact gives more legitimacy to the PUC.  It allows SFT and co. to have the issues out in a forum in which he can give some platitudes, "take it under advisement", or make some recommendations etc. that will not change anything but will look like something is being done.  The HA will then report it, and while those who really know the state of affairs at USM will see the hollowness of the outcome, the general public will view the proceedings as progress and a real response from SFT. The less time and effort spent on the PUC the better - it would be better if the members could just sit there and participate as little as possible and abstain from voting on anything if voting is called for.  Perhaps that is not feasible for those who can not afford to openly oppose him, but he will succeed in his PR efforts if the PUC continues the discuss major issues and be reported as it has been.

Proposal idea from the PUC at next meeting:

from PUCer: "Dr. Thames, we have discussed the next agenda item, and are all supportive of eliminating e-mail altogether at USM.  This is certainly possible to do.  How about it?"

Dr Thames: "...."

I would love to hear his reaction, and of course, I would be willing to live with a decision of "okay" should it come from him.

 

Rosalie was right the first time - the PUC (now PC) must be eliminated!  Why hasn't this been brought up at one of the meetings?  If the committee is supposed to foster communication across campus, why do we not get reports about what the PC is doing and why do the members not receive input from all campus constituencies (which they supposedly represent)?  The reason is, as I see it, this committee no more fosters communication across campus  than does the PR Office - they serve only to make Thames look good.  Any hesitancy to disband the PC only shows how easily we are all duped by SFT.  The longer this goes on the more of a joke it becomes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"
(3) Is anyone at the PUC meetings keeping formal minutes?  If so, will these be shared with the faculty and staff as a whole?"

---

Minutes from 5-26-04:

-----------------------------------------

President’s Council
Of
The University of Southern Mississippi

Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Council
May 26, 2004

The council was called to order by Dr. Shelby Thames at 3:01 pm on Monday, May 17, 2004 in Room H of the Cook Union Building. The agenda had been distributed by e-mail from Polly Odom, Secretary to Dr. Thames on the previous day.

Dr. Bobby Middlebrooks, Facilitator, presented the minutes for approval or revision. The minutes had previously been distributed via e-mail to the Council listserv and reading of the minutes was waived. Dr. Trellis Green asked that the minutes be amended to reflect his question to Dr. Thames clarifying that by the word “faculty” Dr. Thames meant both the Faculty Senate and the Faculty as a whole. Dr. Thames agreed that this was accurate. Pam Posey moved to approve the revised minutes. Dr. Green seconded the motion. Motion was APPROVED unanimously.

Dr. Middlebrooks asked Dr. Thames for approval to move “Proposal for Elected Body” ahead of “Challenges for Southern Miss” as there was concern that this matter be addressed at this meeting. Dr. Thames agreed to the change. Dr. Middlebrooks made a motion to amend the agenda and the motion was accepted without objection.

Academic Freedom

Dr. Thames read the following statement from the Faculty Handbook related to Academic Freedom:

On August 17, 1959, the Board of Trustees adopted a statement of policy on academic freedom and responsibility. That statement reads in part:

It is the policy of this Board that there should prevail at our universities and colleges an atmosphere of freedom in their research, teaching, programs and services and there should be no political or subversive propagandizing in the academic programs. It is proclaimed with equal fervor that academic freedom does not mean academic license. With freedom there must be responsibility for statements, speeches, and actions.

Faculty members are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publications of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties. Research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the University. The legitimate exercise of academic freedom and freedom of speech shall not constitute grounds for termination.

Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they must be careful not to introduce into their teaching any controversial matter that has no relation to the classroom subject.

Source: Faculty Handbook and IHL

Dr. Thames also distributed a copy of the foregoing statement to the members of the Council present at the meeting. Dr. Thames stated that this is our doctrine and that he will live by it. He asked if there were any questions and there were none.

Email Policy

Dr. Thames gave an update on the email policy. He introduced Mr. Lee Gore, University Counsel, whom he invited to attend the meeting in order to clarify legal points. Mr. Gore recommended that Dr. Thames’ statement in the previous meeting of the Council be restated to say that such surveillance will take place only with the “advice of a member of the Attorney General’s staff” and that no reference be made to obtaining approval from a judge. Mr. Gore explained that judges will not issue a search warrant unless criminal activity is suspected and that there are many instances when an investigation may be warranted by the University that do not involve criminal activity.

David Johnson questioned Mr. Gore as to whether he was recommending advice only or approval from a member of the AG’s staff, and Mr. Gore stated that the AG’s staff could not give approval but could only give legal advice, which he agreed could be ignored by the administration.

Dr. Tammy Greer asked if Mr. Gore could give an example or guidelines under which he could envision an investigation that would not involve criminal activity. Mr. Gore referred to a current investigation involving use of grade change forms. Dr. Greer responded that she felt this should only cover criminal activity. Dr. Trellis Green asked for clarification of non-criminal versus criminal activity.

Dr. Middlebrooks stated that he felt the concern on the part of the Council was over there being too much “wiggle room” in the policy.

Mr. Gore gave several examples of previous investigations. Dr. Greer stated that this would not change the policy at all. Mr. Gore responded that the Council was seeking to secure rights that they do not have. He spoke about the ownership of property by the University and restated his earlier statement that a judge will not grant a search warrant or order in the absence of criminal activity.

Dr. Middlebrooks brought up Dr. Stephen Judd’s suggestion from the previous meeting of having a review committee composed of Mr. Gore and 2 faculty members. Dr. Greer stated that perhaps they could use such a committee for non-criminal matters and a judge for criminal matters.
Mr. Gore indicated that the reason for seeking a search warrant from a judge was so that results of the search or surveillance could be used in a criminal prosecution under the “fruits of the search” doctrine.

Dr. Greer questioned whether such an investigation could be conducted in another way other than surveillance or seizure. Dr. Thames responded that he has to take the advice of his counsel since he works for the Attorney General’s office. Mr. Johnson asked whether that would mean that the only advice that would have to be sought under Mr. Gore’s proposal would be the advice of Mr. Gore since he is a member of the Attorney General’s staff. Mr. Gore responded that this would be correct.

Dr. Greer again raised the idea of the faculty/counsel committee. Drs. Middlebrooks and Greer both indicated that they saw this as an advisory committee only and for non-criminal investigations. Dr. Thames and Mr. Gore expressed their concern that such a committee might not be available on short notice and their further concern regarding confidentiality. Dr. Green concurred that he thought confidentiality ought to be protected and suggested that circumstances could be given to the committee without names.

In order to address the need for quick action and possible limitations of the ability to assemble the committee, it was suggested that a pool of ten faculty members might be chosen and that, in the event of an investigation, it would be possible to select two faculty members from that pool to meet with Mr. Gore and the administration. Ms. Sheila White asked if the pool would only include faculty members.

Dr. Middlebrooks raised the issue of whether the administration might keep selecting faculty members from the pool until they were able to find two who would agree to the surveillance. He expressed that this would be a concern raised by some members of the University community.

Dr. Amy Young, AAUP President and a guest of the Council, talked about the procedure for the Grade Review Committee. She indicated that no one knew who the committee members are except for the chair, who is Dr. Young at present. She suggested that a similar model might be used to protect the pool of ten.

Dr. Thames suggested that he would take the minutes of the meeting, meet with Mr. Gore and develop a policy to be circulated to the University community for feedback.

Drug and Alcohol Policy

Dr. Thames indicated that he had asked Dr. Mitch Berman to establish a committee to include faculty, staff and students as well as members from outside the University with established expertise in this area. This committee will take advantage of materials already developed by the Faculty Senate and will review these materials and other ideas over the next four to six weeks in order to develop a policy which they will give to the Deans. The Deans will then give the policy to department chairs in their respective colleges and request faculty and staff comment. Following the period of faculty and staff comment, a final policy would be adopted to be implemented by October 1.

Dr. Stephen Judd, Faculty Senator and a guest of the Council, asked whether the review would include elected bodies. Dr. Thames responded that everyone will be given a chance for feedback. Dr. Judd expressed some concern about it “going around” the elected bodies. Dr. Thames responded that he wants everyone to express any concerns that they have about the policy. Dr. Judd restated his concern that the representative structure is being circumvented Dr. Middlebrooks stated that he thought the administration should seek input from all bodies as well as the University community at large. Dr. Thames stated that he wants recommendations from the Faculty Senate and all elected bodies as well as the remainder of the University community. Dr. Green stated that this was why he asked for the amendment to the minutes of the previous meeting.

Dr. Thames stated that “The elected bodies will not be circumvented.” Dr. Green asked whether he thought a date of October 1 was reasonable since the elected bodies will likely not meet until September. Dr. Thames stated that if any body cannot meet the target date of October 1 and can give a reasonable request to extend the date, such a request would be honored. However, he would not want this continued indefinitely and restated his intent that October 1 remain as a target date for adoption of the policy.

Faculty Handbook

Dr. Thames stated that there are four areas of the Faculty Handbook that were not agreed upon by the committee unanimously. He reminded the Council that the entire Handbook had been approved but that he would prefer that these four sections be revisited to determine if they could find language that could meet unanimous approval.

Dr. Thames has asked Dr. Bill Taylor, who chaired the committee and has since retired, to meet with the Deans to try to come to a unanimous consensus on these four areas. Dr. Taylor has agreed to do this. Once revised, the Handbook would be circulated to the Faculty Senate and to the faculty as a whole for comment.

Dr. Judd asked whether the four areas shouldn’t go back to the original committee. Dr. Bill Powell, Faculty Senator and a guest of the Council, asked whether the Faculty Senate President should not be included in the negotiations. Dr. Joan Exline, Interim Dean of the College of Health and Deans’ Liaison to the Council, stated that the Deans were trying to get this done quickly and thought they had some quick solutions to the issues. Mr. Johnson asked whether the Deans were trying to get this adopted prior to July 1 and Dr. Exline stated that this would not be possible. Dr. Thames said that this would have to take effect the following year. Dr. Green stated that if that were the case there would be no reason to rush the process. Dr. Middlebrooks stated that he did not think involvement of the faculty would slow the process and that, in any event, since it has been already agreed that the document cannot be approved prior to the July 1, there would be no problem with the time of approval being delayed until sometime in the Fall semester.

Dr. Thames asked that it go to the faculty committee first who would recommend any changes to these four areas only to Dr. Thames. The changes would then be presented to the Faculty Senate and the faculty for comment.

Proposal for Elected Body

Dr. Middlebrooks stated that this proposal to move the President’s Council to an elected body was a pressing issue to enhance the effectiveness of the Council in advising the President.

Dr. Thames stated that his desire was for a broad-based wide segment of the University community to act as the Council. He further stated that he does not understand the problem with the Council as presently constituted.

Dr. Noel Polk, Faculty Senator and a guest of the Council, asked to be heard on this point to which Dr. Thames agreed. Dr. Polk stated that there is a great deal of mistrust of Dr. Thames in this community and a feeling that he has acted without seeking the input of faculty. Dr. Thames stated that this was not true. Dr. Polk stated that this is the perception and that the perception was the reality with which Dr. Thames must deal.

Dr. Green stated that he felt the Council would be broader based if elected. Dr. Middlebrooks stated that, as currently configured, this group will become a barrier to communication. He further stated his opinion that the fastest way to get to a workable group is to go to the elected bodies. Because the elected bodies have been dealing with these issues for weeks, months and years, Dr. Middlebrooks feels that these people can be more helpful to the President than the current Council.

Ms. Kimberly Swan, student representative from CBED, stated that she would feel better knowing the Council were elected. She made a brief and eloquent statement in favor of having the Council elected by the already elected bodies. Mr. Johnson stated that there are already mechanisms in place for the elected bodies to communicate with their constituencies while the Council has no such mechanisms at present.

Ms. Posey disagreed with the sentiment that the Council should be an elected body. She stated her opinion that elected committees haven’t worked and requested that we give the President’s Council as presently constituted a chance to work. She also stated that there are other committees of the University that are appointed indicating a precedence for appointment.

Ms. Virginia Kittrell, President of Staff Council and a guest of the President’s Council, stated that she has received concerns about the body not being elected. She further stated that she felt that people could volunteer to be on a ballot for election as the Staff Council currently conducts their elections.
Dr. Thames stated his concern that some community members are not in touch with their elected representatives. He stated that he wished to see whether our technology would permit us to electronically poll the University community to see if it favors an elected body, with the proviso that the poll would have to be structured such that no member of the University community could vote more than once. Dr. Thames stated his desire that the President’s Council be an effective body but that he wished to broaden the base of representation. He went on to say that it was his feeling that there are people who would not agree to serve on an elected representative body but who would agree to serve if asked to serve on an appointed Council.

Dr. Green stated that, as an economist, he looks at the costs and benefits of the decision. He stated that he has talked to about 40 people all of whom want the Council to be elected. He went on to say that he sees a lot of benefits and doesn’t know what the costs would be.

Dr. Michael Salda, Faculty Senator and a guest of the Council, stated that, given the distrust of electronic sources, that an electronic poll may not be the best way to survey the University community.

Dr. Lin Agler stated that if she had been asked prior to being appointed, she would have preferred an elected body. She went on to state that she now feels that if this group is honest and since we are already in place that she feels that confidence will depend upon what the Council is able to accomplish and that this may change people’s perceptions of the Council.

Dr. Greer agreed and stated that nothing has yet come out of the Council. She stated that people haven’t yet had an opportunity to see the effects of the Council.

Mr. Robin Ryder asked what the term of service of the Council would be. He stated that rotating the membership may be a way around this problem. Dr. Thames responded that no term limit had yet been set for the Council.

Dr. Thames stated that he feels very strongly that, if the Council were to change to an elected body, that the elected members should not be members of the already elected bodies.

Ms. Petra Lamb suggested adding elected body members to the already appointed Council.

Dr. Greer asked if Dr. Thames saw the Council continuing for the long term. Dr. Thames indicated that he did see this remaining in place for the long-term, at least until such time as we no longer have these issues of communication. Dr. Middlebrooks expressed his opinion that we were all trying to get to that point as quickly as possible.

Dr. Thames asked that the Council think about how we could alter perceptions in the University community, keep the Council broad-based and possibly include some elected representation if necessary.

Future Meetings

Dr. Middlebrooks stated that meeting once a week was too often and that, with the term beginning next week, people would be very busy. Dr. Thames asked whether the group would be willing to have a couple more meetings fairly quickly. Dr. Green suggested that with next week being the first week of summer term that we skip that week and not meet until the week following, which was agreed to without objection.

Dr. Thames thanked the members for their work and willingness to serve. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________________
David H. Johnson, Secretary

Approved:



______________________________
Dr. Bobby Middlebrooks, Facilitator

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anonymous
" Minutes from 5-26-04: ----------------------------------------- President’s Council Of The University of Southern Mississippi Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Council May 26, 2004 The council was called to order by Dr. Shelby Thames at 3:01 pm on Monday, May 17, 2004 in Room H of the Cook Union Building. The agenda had been distributed by e-mail from Polly Odom, Secretary to Dr. Thames on the previous day. Dr. Bobby Middlebrooks, Facilitator, presented the minutes for approval or revision. The minutes had previously been distributed via e-mail to the Council listserv and reading of the minutes was waived. Dr. Trellis Green asked that the minutes be amended to reflect his question to Dr. Thames clarifying that by the word “faculty” Dr. Thames meant both the Faculty Senate and the Faculty as a whole. Dr. Thames agreed that this was accurate. Pam Posey moved to approve the revised minutes. Dr. Green seconded the motion. Motion was APPROVED unanimously. Dr. Middlebrooks asked Dr. Thames for approval to move “Proposal for Elected Body” ahead of “Challenges for Southern Miss” as there was concern that this matter be addressed at this meeting. Dr. Thames agreed to the change. Dr. Middlebrooks made a motion to amend the agenda and the motion was accepted without objection. Academic Freedom Dr. Thames read the following statement from the Faculty Handbook related to Academic Freedom: On August 17, 1959, the Board of Trustees adopted a statement of policy on academic freedom and responsibility. That statement reads in part: It is the policy of this Board that there should prevail at our universities and colleges an atmosphere of freedom in their research, teaching, programs and services and there should be no political or subversive propagandizing in the academic programs. It is proclaimed with equal fervor that academic freedom does not mean academic license. With freedom there must be responsibility for statements, speeches, and actions. Faculty members are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publications of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties. Research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the University. The legitimate exercise of academic freedom and freedom of speech shall not constitute grounds for termination. Faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they must be careful not to introduce into their teaching any controversial matter that has no relation to the classroom subject. Source: Faculty Handbook and IHL Dr. Thames also distributed a copy of the foregoing statement to the members of the Council present at the meeting. Dr. Thames stated that this is our doctrine and that he will live by it. He asked if there were any questions and there were none. Email Policy Dr. Thames gave an update on the email policy. He introduced Mr. Lee Gore, University Counsel, whom he invited to attend the meeting in order to clarify legal points. Mr. Gore recommended that Dr. Thames’ statement in the previous meeting of the Council be restated to say that such surveillance will take place only with the “advice of a member of the Attorney General’s staff” and that no reference be made to obtaining approval from a judge. Mr. Gore explained that judges will not issue a search warrant unless criminal activity is suspected and that there are many instances when an investigation may be warranted by the University that do not involve criminal activity. David Johnson questioned Mr. Gore as to whether he was recommending advice only or approval from a member of the AG’s staff, and Mr. Gore stated that the AG’s staff could not give approval but could only give legal advice, which he agreed could be ignored by the administration. Dr. Tammy Greer asked if Mr. Gore could give an example or guidelines under which he could envision an investigation that would not involve criminal activity. Mr. Gore referred to a current investigation involving use of grade change forms. Dr. Greer responded that she felt this should only cover criminal activity. Dr. Trellis Green asked for clarification of non-criminal versus criminal activity. Dr. Middlebrooks stated that he felt the concern on the part of the Council was over there being too much “wiggle room” in the policy. Mr. Gore gave several examples of previous investigations. Dr. Greer stated that this would not change the policy at all. Mr. Gore responded that the Council was seeking to secure rights that they do not have. He spoke about the ownership of property by the University and restated his earlier statement that a judge will not grant a search warrant or order in the absence of criminal activity. Dr. Middlebrooks brought up Dr. Stephen Judd’s suggestion from the previous meeting of having a review committee composed of Mr. Gore and 2 faculty members. Dr. Greer stated that perhaps they could use such a committee for non-criminal matters and a judge for criminal matters. Mr. Gore indicated that the reason for seeking a search warrant from a judge was so that results of the search or surveillance could be used in a criminal prosecution under the “fruits of the search” doctrine. Dr. Greer questioned whether such an investigation could be conducted in another way other than surveillance or seizure. Dr. Thames responded that he has to take the advice of his counsel since he works for the Attorney General’s office. Mr. Johnson asked whether that would mean that the only advice that would have to be sought under Mr. Gore’s proposal would be the advice of Mr. Gore since he is a member of the Attorney General’s staff. Mr. Gore responded that this would be correct. Dr. Greer again raised the idea of the faculty/counsel committee. Drs. Middlebrooks and Greer both indicated that they saw this as an advisory committee only and for non-criminal investigations. Dr. Thames and Mr. Gore expressed their concern that such a committee might not be available on short notice and their further concern regarding confidentiality. Dr. Green concurred that he thought confidentiality ought to be protected and suggested that circumstances could be given to the committee without names. In order to address the need for quick action and possible limitations of the ability to assemble the committee, it was suggested that a pool of ten faculty members might be chosen and that, in the event of an investigation, it would be possible to select two faculty members from that pool to meet with Mr. Gore and the administration. Ms. Sheila White asked if the pool would only include faculty members. Dr. Middlebrooks raised the issue of whether the administration might keep selecting faculty members from the pool until they were able to find two who would agree to the surveillance. He expressed that this would be a concern raised by some members of the University community. Dr. Amy Young, AAUP President and a guest of the Council, talked about the procedure for the Grade Review Committee. She indicated that no one knew who the committee members are except for the chair, who is Dr. Young at present. She suggested that a similar model might be used to protect the pool of ten. Dr. Thames suggested that he would take the minutes of the meeting, meet with Mr. Gore and develop a policy to be circulated to the University community for feedback. Drug and Alcohol Policy Dr. Thames indicated that he had asked Dr. Mitch Berman to establish a committee to include faculty, staff and students as well as members from outside the University with established expertise in this area. This committee will take advantage of materials already developed by the Faculty Senate and will review these materials and other ideas over the next four to six weeks in order to develop a policy which they will give to the Deans. The Deans will then give the policy to department chairs in their respective colleges and request faculty and staff comment. Following the period of faculty and staff comment, a final policy would be adopted to be implemented by October 1. Dr. Stephen Judd, Faculty Senator and a guest of the Council, asked whether the review would include elected bodies. Dr. Thames responded that everyone will be given a chance for feedback. Dr. Judd expressed some concern about it “going around” the elected bodies. Dr. Thames responded that he wants everyone to express any concerns that they have about the policy. Dr. Judd restated his concern that the representative structure is being circumvented Dr. Middlebrooks stated that he thought the administration should seek input from all bodies as well as the University community at large. Dr. Thames stated that he wants recommendations from the Faculty Senate and all elected bodies as well as the remainder of the University community. Dr. Green stated that this was why he asked for the amendment to the minutes of the previous meeting. Dr. Thames stated that “The elected bodies will not be circumvented.” Dr. Green asked whether he thought a date of October 1 was reasonable since the elected bodies will likely not meet until September. Dr. Thames stated that if any body cannot meet the target date of October 1 and can give a reasonable request to extend the date, such a request would be honored. However, he would not want this continued indefinitely and restated his intent that October 1 remain as a target date for adoption of the policy. Faculty Handbook Dr. Thames stated that there are four areas of the Faculty Handbook that were not agreed upon by the committee unanimously. He reminded the Council that the entire Handbook had been approved but that he would prefer that these four sections be revisited to determine if they could find language that could meet unanimous approval. Dr. Thames has asked Dr. Bill Taylor, who chaired the committee and has since retired, to meet with the Deans to try to come to a unanimous consensus on these four areas. Dr. Taylor has agreed to do this. Once revised, the Handbook would be circulated to the Faculty Senate and to the faculty as a whole for comment. Dr. Judd asked whether the four areas shouldn’t go back to the original committee. Dr. Bill Powell, Faculty Senator and a guest of the Council, asked whether the Faculty Senate President should not be included in the negotiations. Dr. Joan Exline, Interim Dean of the College of Health and Deans’ Liaison to the Council, stated that the Deans were trying to get this done quickly and thought they had some quick solutions to the issues. Mr. Johnson asked whether the Deans were trying to get this adopted prior to July 1 and Dr. Exline stated that this would not be possible. Dr. Thames said that this would have to take effect the following year. Dr. Green stated that if that were the case there would be no reason to rush the process. Dr. Middlebrooks stated that he did not think involvement of the faculty would slow the process and that, in any event, since it has been already agreed that the document cannot be approved prior to the July 1, there would be no problem with the time of approval being delayed until sometime in the Fall semester. Dr. Thames asked that it go to the faculty committee first who would recommend any changes to these four areas only to Dr. Thames. The changes would then be presented to the Faculty Senate and the faculty for comment. Proposal for Elected Body Dr. Middlebrooks stated that this proposal to move the President’s Council to an elected body was a pressing issue to enhance the effectiveness of the Council in advising the President. Dr. Thames stated that his desire was for a broad-based wide segment of the University community to act as the Council. He further stated that he does not understand the problem with the Council as presently constituted. Dr. Noel Polk, Faculty Senator and a guest of the Council, asked to be heard on this point to which Dr. Thames agreed. Dr. Polk stated that there is a great deal of mistrust of Dr. Thames in this community and a feeling that he has acted without seeking the input of faculty. Dr. Thames stated that this was not true. Dr. Polk stated that this is the perception and that the perception was the reality with which Dr. Thames must deal. Dr. Green stated that he felt the Council would be broader based if elected. Dr. Middlebrooks stated that, as currently configured, this group will become a barrier to communication. He further stated his opinion that the fastest way to get to a workable group is to go to the elected bodies. Because the elected bodies have been dealing with these issues for weeks, months and years, Dr. Middlebrooks feels that these people can be more helpful to the President than the current Council. Ms. Kimberly Swan, student representative from CBED, stated that she would feel better knowing the Council were elected. She made a brief and eloquent statement in favor of having the Council elected by the already elected bodies. Mr. Johnson stated that there are already mechanisms in place for the elected bodies to communicate with their constituencies while the Council has no such mechanisms at present. Ms. Posey disagreed with the sentiment that the Council should be an elected body. She stated her opinion that elected committees haven’t worked and requested that we give the President’s Council as presently constituted a chance to work. She also stated that there are other committees of the University that are appointed indicating a precedence for appointment. Ms. Virginia Kittrell, President of Staff Council and a guest of the President’s Council, stated that she has received concerns about the body not being elected. She further stated that she felt that people could volunteer to be on a ballot for election as the Staff Council currently conducts their elections. Dr. Thames stated his concern that some community members are not in touch with their elected representatives. He stated that he wished to see whether our technology would permit us to electronically poll the University community to see if it favors an elected body, with the proviso that the poll would have to be structured such that no member of the University community could vote more than once. Dr. Thames stated his desire that the President’s Council be an effective body but that he wished to broaden the base of representation. He went on to say that it was his feeling that there are people who would not agree to serve on an elected representative body but who would agree to serve if asked to serve on an appointed Council. Dr. Green stated that, as an economist, he looks at the costs and benefits of the decision. He stated that he has talked to about 40 people all of whom want the Council to be elected. He went on to say that he sees a lot of benefits and doesn’t know what the costs would be. Dr. Michael Salda, Faculty Senator and a guest of the Council, stated that, given the distrust of electronic sources, that an electronic poll may not be the best way to survey the University community. Dr. Lin Agler stated that if she had been asked prior to being appointed, she would have preferred an elected body. She went on to state that she now feels that if this group is honest and since we are already in place that she feels that confidence will depend upon what the Council is able to accomplish and that this may change people’s perceptions of the Council. Dr. Greer agreed and stated that nothing has yet come out of the Council. She stated that people haven’t yet had an opportunity to see the effects of the Council. Mr. Robin Ryder asked what the term of service of the Council would be. He stated that rotating the membership may be a way around this problem. Dr. Thames responded that no term limit had yet been set for the Council. Dr. Thames stated that he feels very strongly that, if the Council were to change to an elected body, that the elected members should not be members of the already elected bodies. Ms. Petra Lamb suggested adding elected body members to the already appointed Council. Dr. Greer asked if Dr. Thames saw the Council continuing for the long term. Dr. Thames indicated that he did see this remaining in place for the long-term, at least until such time as we no longer have these issues of communication. Dr. Middlebrooks expressed his opinion that we were all trying to get to that point as quickly as possible. Dr. Thames asked that the Council think about how we could alter perceptions in the University community, keep the Council broad-based and possibly include some elected representation if necessary. Future Meetings Dr. Middlebrooks stated that meeting once a week was too often and that, with the term beginning next week, people would be very busy. Dr. Thames asked whether the group would be willing to have a couple more meetings fairly quickly. Dr. Green suggested that with next week being the first week of summer term that we skip that week and not meet until the week following, which was agreed to without objection. Dr. Thames thanked the members for their work and willingness to serve. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ David H. Johnson, Secretary Approved: ______________________________ Dr. Bobby Middlebrooks, Facilitator "

---

So, if SFT is really running the agenda and will not let the committee act as it wants to (elected reps) then everyone should quit going to meetings.  This is SFT's baby, not the members'.  How long are they going to do good free PR for him while letting him determine the agenda and determine how everything is going to work?  This is the last time that I'll say this: What a joke!

This is all so Orwellian...I'm utterly amazed.  I can't believe some of the things that came out of SFT's mouth.  I don't even know where to begin to respond to this nonsense, so I won't.  Reading the minutes and the conversation of the PUC members and SFT reminded me of trying to reason with my 6 year old...and, trust me, my 6 year old has a better grasp of reality than SFT.

What a sorry, sorry mess...I'm so sad for what USM has become (yet again!).  PUC members, disband your group now!  Don't be a SFT shill!

"Dr. Thames stated that his desire was for a broad-based wide segment of the University community to act as the Council. He further stated that he does not understand the problem with the Council as presently constituted."

This latter sentence is astonishing!  He doesn't understand the problem with an appointed, non-elected body composed, to a great degree, of people who have no protection if they disagree with him or challenge him?  He doesn't understand why an elected body would be more legitimate and would be freer to give him honest advice?  He doesn't understand why the members of an elected body would be more protected, if only because they could claim to be voicing the opinions of the people who elected them rather than their own personal views?  Either he is very cynical, or very naive.

Thanks, by the way, to David Johnson for providing such detailed notes; thanks to the many people who did try to challenge SFT.

Now seems to be a good time for folks on campus to communicate with the specific members of the PUC who think that the body as presently constituted is just fine; let them know otherwise.  In other words, let them know that they do NOT represent YOU when they offer such opinions.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
""Dr. Thames stated that his desire was for a broad-based wide segment of the University community to act as the Council. He further stated that he does not understand the problem with the Council as presently constituted." This latter sentence is astonishing!  He doesn't understand the problem with an appointed, non-elected body composed, to a great degree, of people who have no protection if they disagree with him or challenge him?  He doesn't understand why an elected body would be more legitimate and would be freer to give him honest advice?  He doesn't understand why the members of an elected body would be more protected, if only because they could claim to be voicing the opinions of the people who elected them rather than their own personal views?  Either he is very cynical, or very naive. Thanks, by the way, to David Johnson for providing such detailed notes; thanks to the many people who did try to challenge SFT. Now seems to be a good time for folks on campus to communicate with the specific members of the PUC who think that the body as presently constituted is just fine; let them know otherwise.  In other words, let them know that they do NOT represent YOU when they offer such opinions.  "

---

Thanks, USMS for the kind words. It's not easy to get it all down, and I do make mistakes, which is why I am posting this response:

I caution the members of this board that the minutes as listed above (I have no idea who supplied them) have not yet been approved by the PC and there has already been one request for a revision which has been made but does not appear in the version above. I am sure there will be other revisions, given how much conversation took place. I believe the minutes are mostly accurate, but no one should rely on them as totally accurate until the PC has revised and approved them.

In the interest of improving communication, I am willing to post my email address here, but with some caveats:

1) If you don't sign it, I won't read it. I'll look for your name first...a real name. If you don't feel comfortable telling me who you are along with your opinion, I'm not prepared to give your opinion much credence. This may seem unfair to some...and I do understand that some are fearful of being named. I think it is important, however, to note that good people have put their names and reputations on the line and they deserve for the rest of us to be willing to do the same. To do otherwise is disrespectful of the risks they have taken to lead.

2) Maybe no one will write, but there is an equally good chance that I will get a flood of responses. Please do NOT expect me to respond to each of these e-mails. I promise to read the ones that are signed.

3) I reserve the right to share your emails to me with other members of the PC. We all deserve to hear your communication.

4) I ask only that you see this as a genuine effort to give everyone a chance to be heard. I don't limit your right to say what you will, but I ask you to show respect for people who are trying to do a very difficult job.

5) This is my USM e-mail address. You may wish to bear that in mind.

That said, you can email me at: mailto:david.h.johnson@usm.edu

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"

If an IT group that can monitor emails & meet the forensic requirements for pilfering through hard drives can't set up a survey to meet these requirements, then USM is definitely paying Pileum too much.

I personally have written polling CGI's that permit "one vote per person" in less than 3 hours. I have no reason to believe that there aren't a dozen folks in the Computer Science Department who couldn't beat my time by 50%.

Of course, if USM had an institutional research office that hadn't been systematically pummelled over the past 4 years, they'd probably have a neat little software package for doing exactly what Dr. Thames wants..."

---

Question: Regarding the comments by SFT on voting on-line for the PCU. Doesn't the Hattiesburg American have the software needed to conduct such a poll with only one vote per person?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Green Hornet
" Question: Regarding the comments by SFT on voting on-line for the PCU. Doesn't the Hattiesburg American have the software needed to conduct such a poll with only one vote per person?"

---

All you have to do is log IP addresses, right?  Or have a way to sign on with your SSN or Empl ID?  I'm with Invictus; I can't imagine that someone can't figure that one out.  Sounds like more stalling from Shelboo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" David: I want to say that I TRULY respect your sincere effort to make a go of this PUC business.  I hope you understand that my very vehement utterings about the PUC are not directed at anyone personally (especially not you).  But, I hope you understand that you are being used by SFT to deflect criticism that he isn't "communicating" with the USM community.  The PUC is the biggest shell game that SFT has created to date, and the *only* purpose it can serve right now is to allow SFT to continue to get free publicity for his "kinder, gentler" presidency PR ploy.  The PUC doesn't even have any by-laws, no provisions for membership, no organizational structure, nada, zippo, zilch.  Right now, all I can see are a bunch of mostly well-meaning USM citizens running around like chickens with their heads cut off (as my country gramma used to say) trying to figure out a structure and process for this committee after the fact.  SFT's PR "cart" was put way before the "horse" here...has anyone asked why SFT is pushing so hard for a few more "quick" meetings in the next few weeks?  Why was the PUC hastily slapped together and forced to meet during the semester break?  Why does SFT continue to control the agenda and the non-process of the group?  Answer:  Because SFT cares as much about shared governance and communication as he does about Shakespeare (i.e. not much at all!).  He's doing this simply because his bosses (the IHL board) told him to do it.  The most telling statement in the whole set of minutes was when SFT was surprised that there was a climate of mistrust that he created at USM.  HELLO???  Does he not read the papers?  Does he not look at a TV?  Does he not step outside his door at the Dome every day? The more I read about PUC, the madder I get.  I'll try to keep my rants down to a dull roar. Andrea Hewitt (alum and current doctoral student) (signing my name, although I won't send this to your usm.edu address).  "

---

You make some good points, and thanks for saying who you are. I respect that.

What a lot of us are trying to do is GET some structure in place, have some order to things, and work out the bugs. We've only been at it about 3 weeks and only really had 2 meetings. That's not a lot of time.

Mostly we agree on things. But, we have what we have...

quote:

---

Originally posted by: David Johnson
"Actually, what Dr. Thames did was to propose an electronic poll that would allow one vote per person. Dr. Salda, who was there as a non-member onlooker, was the one who suggested that it should not be by electronic means."

---

I stand corrected.  But the larger point is this:  why does SFT feel that he needs to ask the USM community to participate in a democratic process to find out if they want a democratically-elected representative body to represent them? (and thereby stall on actually communicating to the elected, representative bodies that already exist on campus). 

Do you see why all of this seems like a stalling tactic and an "end run" to most of us here?  The point is this:  SFT does not want to deal with Faculty Senate or the other elected bodies that have criticized him recently, so instead he creates a hastily-assembled, separate, SFT-approved group of advisors whom he then dictates an agenda to.  This is the opposite of shared governance in anyone's book.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: David Johnson
" You make some good points, and thanks for saying who you are. I respect that. What a lot of us are trying to do is GET some structure in place, have some order to things, and work out the bugs. We've only been at it about 3 weeks and only really had 2 meetings. That's not a lot of time. Mostly we agree on things. But, we have what we have..."

---

But, you do understand my point about structure, right?  Faculty Senate and Staff Council (and others) ALREADY have a structure and process in place.  Why reinvent the wheel?  Why spend so much time and energy on this when the exact same thing (sans SFT's stamp of approval) ALREADY EXISTS?  This seems like a such a waste of valuable time for so many.  Perhaps if the name were different (Crisis Task Force or Task Force on Improving Communication), it would send the message that it wasn't permanent and that it was set up simply to address the crisis at hand.  SFT can pontificate and act dumb-founded all he wants, but if it walks like a crisis and talks like a crisis...well, you can fill in the rest.

Seems like a lot of (PR) wheel-spinning to me by folks such as yourself who have much more pressing things to do with your time, I'm sure.

AH