Some questions about PUC - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 28, 2004

About the PUC

Date: May 28, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Some questions about PUC

Date: May 28, 2004

I'll go along with TRUTH on this one. The PUC isn't likely to help anyone.

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" I think our posts are crossing! I'll leave you with this question: if the PUC has no authority, then what is this group's purpose? I would press this issue with SFT above all others. Make him state it FOR THE RECORD.

Actually, AH, he did make a statement for the record on 5-17-04 which is included in the approved minutes of that meeting. The direct quote is:

“The President’s Council is an ad hoc, advisory, non-governing focus group whose purpose is to assist with and facilitate communication throughout the campus – faculty, staff and students.”

How to do that hasn't been determined yet. Personally, I think it is through the elected bodies. I do like the idea of a town-hall meeting, though. That's a great idea. Maybe the reps for each college could hold town-hall meetings in their colleges?

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: rosalie z
"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."

Bump

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Anonymous
"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."

David, since I know you're reading this thread, I'd like to commend you (or congratulate you or whatever the right word is) for asking this particular question. Otherwise, a very important point would have slipped in under the radar.

I would be interested in finding out what sort of noncriminal activity would merit secret monitoring of an employee's email. Let us know if you find out what it may be.

I'll sign this as "Invictus." However, I hope you'll read this message anyway.

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" David, since I know you're reading this thread, I'd like to commend you (or congratulate you or whatever the right word is) for asking this particular question. Otherwise, a very important point would have slipped in under the radar. I would be interested in finding out what sort of noncriminal activity would merit secret monitoring of an employee's email. Let us know if you find out what it may be. I'll sign this as "Invictus." However, I hope you'll read this message anyway. "

I'll read postings that aren't signed, just not personal emails.

The question you raise was raised repeatedly in the meeting by Dr. Tammy Greer and others. Mr. Gore didn't appear to be able to give examples of non-criminal activity that would merit surveillance. You may have also noted that I asked Mr. Gore whether, as a member of the AG's staff, his proposed policy would permit the administration to consult only with him for advice (which could be ignored) and that he responded that that was correct.

Date: May 28, 2004

The President’s Council is an ad hoc, advisory, non-governing focus group whose purpose is to assist with and facilitate communication throughout the campus – faculty, staff and students

There's only one way for communication to be properly facilitated:

SFT needs to clean out his ego driven ears and LISTEN to faculty, staff and students, clean out his ego driven brain and THINK about what they're saying, and then clean out his ego driven actions and RESPOND logically to the mess he's created.

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
"
I'll read postings that aren't signed, just not personal emails.
The question you raise was raised repeatedly in the meeting by Dr. Tammy Greer and others. Mr. Gore didn't appear to be able to give examples of non-criminal activity that would merit surveillance. You may have also noted that I asked Mr. Gore whether, as a member of the AG's staff, his proposed policy would permit the administration to consult only with him for advice (which could be ignored) and that he responded that that was correct."

My thoughts:

SFT should be asked directly "Does Lee Gore serve at your pleasure or at the pleasure of the Attorney General?"

and

"Please give us examples of non-criminal activities that you deem appropriate for surveilance."

Don't let him waffle. Make him answer.

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
" Actually, AH, he did make a statement for the record on 5-17-04 which is included in the approved minutes of that meeting. The direct quote is: “The President’s Council is an ad hoc, advisory, non-governing focus group whose purpose is to assist with and facilitate communication throughout the campus – faculty, staff and students.” How to do that hasn't been determined yet. Personally, I think it is through the elected bodies. I do like the idea of a town-hall meeting, though. That's a great idea. Maybe the reps for each college could hold town-hall meetings in their colleges? "

I think town hall meetings with SFT, Faculty Senators, Staff Council members, etc. on the panel would be very helpful. We used to have these sorts of meetings under President Fleming, if I recall correctly. Now, that would be some direct communication!

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" I think town hall meetings with SFT, Faculty Senators, Staff Council members, etc. on the panel would be very helpful. We used to have these sorts of meetings under President Fleming, if I recall correctly. Now, that would be some direct communication! "

I think that's a great idea, AH! Do you think this can be done now or would it be better to wait until Fall Semester when more people are around?

Date: May 28, 2004

Examples of non-criminal activity that typically give rise to email surveillance in the workplace include emails containing porngraphic or sexually explicit material (especially those related to creating a hostile work environment), emails that may infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, emails that are libelous, emails that constitute spam (although in some cases this might constitute criminal activity). These are all examples of conduct that may not be criminal, but potentially create legal liability for the university. Maybe one way to draw a line on this topic is to suggest that the surveillance cover instances where the administration has a good faith or reasonable belief that the emails in question might violate some criminal statute or subject the university to civil liability, and then have the committee in place determine if the good faith or reasonable belief exists.

Just a thought

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
"I think that's a great idea, AH! Do you think this can be done now or would it be better to wait until Fall Semester when more people are around?"

I don't know, since I'm not on campus currently. Anybody who's there want to give your opinion on a town hall meeting? What would it look like? When/where should it happen? How would it best be effective?

Let's hear some constructive suggestions for DJ, folks.

Date: May 28, 2004

I realize I am not USM faculty although I have been faculty elsewhere. However, I think you are going down a dangerous road when you start talking about a body such as the PUC calling for a townhall type meeting and in the summer. talk about legitimizing a body that should not be legitimized.! Think about the PR opportunity for SFT - the media present, "see how cooperative I am being"' etc. Remember that SFT is not interested in compromise, only winning. This is a zero sum game. Also, while I respect what David Johnson thinks he is doing, i.e. helping, mediating and all those good things ,he is a student, (if I recall correctly) and despite his age and experience, can not possibly understand or see all this from a faculty standpoint. He runs the risk of being a SFT pawn and in any case should not be a standin for faculty control of faculty issues. SFT is trying to use students and staff as buffers in the disagreements with faculty. Send it all back to the appropriate elected forums - i.e. faculty senate, etc.

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: rosalie z
"I realize I am not USM faculty although I have been faculty elsewhere. However, I think you are going down a dangerous road when you start talking about a body such as the PUC calling for a townhall type meeting and in the summer. talk about legitimizing a body that should not be legitimized.! Think about the PR opportunity for SFT - the media present, "see how cooperative I am being"' etc. Remember that SFT is not interested in compromise, only winning. This is a zero sum game. Also, while I respect what David Johnson thinks he is doing, i.e. helping, mediating and all those good things ,he is a student, (if I recall correctly) and despite his age and experience, can not possibly understand or see all this from a faculty standpoint. He runs the risk of being a SFT pawn and in any case should not be a standin for faculty control of faculty issues. SFT is trying to use students and staff as buffers in the disagreements with faculty. Send it all back to the appropriate elected forums - i.e. faculty senate, etc. "

You know, I just keep going back and forth myself on this issue. I want the PUC to go away as much as the next person...I think it's an end run around the elected and representative bodies at USM. But, can the PUC do any good at all by giving suggestions to SFT? I just don't know. Perhaps I should step back from this conversation at this point, and let others who are actually on-campus give their viewpoints. I'm willing to open MY ears and just listen.

Date: May 28, 2004

This may not be the most popular opinion, but I thought I'd submit it as another perspective- I appreciate whatever responses that anyone has to it. I'm just a prospective graduate student at USM, and I've been an avid lurker at the FS site since before the hearings in March.

I can only imagine how it feels for faculty and others to witness Thames' presidency and his continued place of power despite everything that has happened. But he does occupy a place of power- and those who directly determine his presence there, such as the IHL, are also folks who are not easily threatened by public opinion, since they are appointed by the Governor (that's my understanding). If he or they don't act in the best interest of USM, it's quite possible that he/they can go on for a good long while without responding to an outcry. It has got to be incredibly frustrating to write letter after letter, and still not see him Thames removed. The PUC, the dismissal of Jack Hanbury, and the outcome of the hearings all suggest that Thames' power isn't unlimited or supported unconditionally. But still, it is unclear how much effect public opinion has in ultimately removing Thames from his office. All this (probably too lengthly) preamble is to justify my position that I believe it is better to have some method of learning about the administration's position on various issues, and have some interaction about policy-making than nothing at all.

Yes, the PUC/PC can be a PR device, clearly. But how damaging or beneficial has PR been in this particular struggle? Although the minutes recorded by Mr. Johnson are not yet approved, if they are at all accurate, it seems as though many of the members are interested in making the PC a legitimate communication body or an agent of constructive change. So maybe while calls for its disbanding are in the right spirit, there may be more benefit in supporting PC members now, in the glim hope that more good may come from its continued existence than complete silence between Thames' administration and any elected body of USM, which seems to have been the norm prior to the PUC. Anyhow, these are just my thoughts, and I look forward to hearing what others think, since many of you are there in Hattiesburg and know firsthand what's going on.