Glamser/Stringer/Dvorak - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 15, 2006

RE: Glamser/Stringer/Dvorak

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Disney wrote:

donald wrote: Don't talk to me about AAUP. It is a spineless group of blowhards It was the AAUP that publicly resisted the flawed drug and alcohol policy.I

Disney wrote: It was the AAUP that broke the bogus enrollment story.It was the AAUP that investigated that highly publicized vita. It was the attack on the AAUP's president and investigator that resulted in the hasty departure of what some have called the Kentucky cabal.What have you done "Donald"? And have you taken any public stands "Donald"?

One more thing, "Donald." The AAUP has enabled you to speak your heart out on this message board. Some of us view it as a refuge in an otherwise hostile and oppressive environment.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Personally, I enjoy Dvorak's "Symphony for the New World." Not so sure what the deal is with all of you music critics on this board.

Perhaps you should boycott Antonin's works as well since he shares the name

Date: Mar 15, 2006

FROM the New World!! It is the melodies of my homeland, and some of yours.
I am glad you like it.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

I've already indicated that I want the ballad "Going Home" from the favored composition played at my funeral. Not that I hope it's anytime soon!

GO EAGLES

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Just a little clarification: While the AAUP did talk about the enrollment story, they didn't break it.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Southern Fried wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: I am ashamed of USM and ashamed of our entire university community for not choking the Thames administration on this wad of illegalities. Those victimized could have owned very dollar Shelboo has. They would have thoroughly fleeced his @ss. Don't talk to me about AAUP. It is a spineless group of blowhards. If AAUP did not take on the university for this issue of SPYING, then forget it in the future. Nothing but hot air, in my opinion. Actually, in FACT. With all due respect, Donald, just what would you have done? Are you talking of a lawsuit? Based on what crime and by whom? Just asking what you think the AAUP could have done, but didn't. I'll second that. Where were you when we needed you? Can you cite any laws that Thames and his enforcers broke with their "wad of illegalities," violations that could have been used as a basis for a lawsuit? Gary and Frank were well represented. So far as I can tell, neither of them were advised to file suit against Thames or USM. If we've missed something, please educate us in the error of our ways.

Had I been on the faculty then, I would have sued his ass off. Students certainly should have. You might not have won a lawsuit, but the embarassment would have put Shelboo "Tiny" Thames down for the count. Believe it. As a practical matter, he should not have been allowed to skate on this one. As for our two colleagues Shelboo fired because of the lies they uncovered, hell, let's face it, they had to take care of themselves, and the financial settlement pretty much tells you who screwed up--again, it was Tiny.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Donald,
How do you think students could have paid for the lawyers necessary for a lawsuit? I'm sure they did want to sue, but it's rather impractical to think they could have afforded it. Their case was certainly stronger than the faculty, but no one was offering the help pay those legal fees.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Kim Chaze was always interested in a class action lawsuit - his fee would have been his typical 1/3.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Remembering the Blows wrote:

Kim Chaze was always interested in a class action lawsuit - his fee would have been his typical 1/3.

Mississippi doesn't permit class actions. In Federal Court, where class actions are allowed, fees on class actions are not 1/3; it is the amount allowed by the Court.

A lot of us are watching www.usmpride.com to see how far somone with money and a will of iron gets with these jerks. Knowing him, I suspect he will get farther than anyone else. When Thames and company decide he won't quit, will they try paying him off? I suspect money won't work, so when will they figure out what he really wants?

Date: Mar 16, 2006

That's a contingency fee, Duh. The money put up - up front is minimal (ranging from $250 to $3000). I hope the one you refer to prevails, but it's not the only dog in this hunt. There are one or two dogs out there only inches away from entering the court (USM has exhausted all means to dismiss them).

Date: Mar 16, 2006

May I respectfully recommend that there are a good many of you who need to stop looking in the rearview mirror (Glasmer/Stringer/Dvorak issue) and start deciding in which direction and by what means you want to move USM forward. Thames leaves in a little over a year. If you want to influence what comes after Thames you better start working on it now. Rehashing and dwelling on these dead issues is not the way. I would suggest that now more than ever is the time to take the high ground and stop wrestling with Thames in the trenches.

As long as the public and IHL see and hear faculty members harping about Thames they will continue to dismiss them as overpaid employees leaving in their ivory towers. Now is the time to start putting forth a real plan on how to address the real challenges USM will be facing after Thames leaves (Tier level, accreditation issues, organizational structure, and how best to positively impact the local community and the State, this includes how to affect economic impact and it does matter.)

To continue to focus on Thames will likely have a negative impact on the quality and number of candidates to apply to lead USM as well as a negative impact on what role IHL allows AAUP and the rest of the faculty and staff to play, if any, in the selection process. It is time to take a longer range look and stop focusing on the current dysfunctions which will not likely end until Thames is gone.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

May I respectfully recommend that there are a good many of you who need to stop looking in the rearview mirror (Glasmer/Stringer/Dvorak issue) and start deciding in which direction and by what means you want to move USM forward. Thames leaves in a little over a year. If you want to influence what comes after Thames you better start working on it now. Rehashing and dwelling on these dead issues is not the way. I would suggest that now more than ever is the time to take the high ground and stop wrestling with Thames in the trenches. As long as the public and IHL see and hear faculty members harping about Thames they will continue to dismiss them as overpaid employees leaving in their ivory towers. Now is the time to start putting forth a real plan on how to address the real challenges USM will be facing after Thames leaves (Tier level, accreditation issues, organizational structure, and how best to positively impact the local community and the State, this includes how to affect economic impact and it does matter.) To continue to focus on Thames will likely have a negative impact on the quality and number of candidates to apply to lead USM as well as a negative impact on what role IHL allows AAUP and the rest of the faculty and staff to play, if any, in the selection process. It is time to take a longer range look and stop focusing on the current dysfunctions which will not likely end until Thames is gone.

I don't agree with everything Coast Resident says here, but I do agree that we need to plan for the future. Right now the first problem I see is having faculty input (as well as staff and other stake holders) in the selection process for the new president. I know the AAUP and Faculty Senate have communicated with the Commissioner, but the MSU search process concerns me. I hope progress is made on a more open search before the search begins.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

May I respectfully recommend that there are a good many of you who need to stop looking in the rearview mirror

Coast Resident, so much of USM's institutional memory has been destroyed that when I look in my rear view mirror I see less and less. The scary thing is that the writing on my mirror says "Objects may be closer than they appear."

....start deciding in which direction and by what means you want to move USM forward.

Did you say that the faculty should decide the direction of the institution? I believe that disappeard in large part when the institutional memory began to fall apart. Look at what's happening in the MSU presidential search. I believe there's a good chance that decisions and choices may be a thing of the past. The suppression of choice and decision-making may be the beginning of a pandemic for Mississippi's institutions of higher learning.

Rehashing and dwelling on these dead issues is not the way.

I recall somebody saying something like "You won't know where you're going unless you know where you've been" I'd say that we can profit from an understanding of the past. Especially the recent past.

I would suggest that now more than ever is the time to take the high ground

Do you think we're taking a more deviously low route?

As long as the public and IHL see and hear faculty members harping . . . . they will continue to dismiss them as overpaid employees leaving in their ivory towers.

Would you suggest that the public be given earmuffs so that can't hear or that the faculty be given muzzles so they can't speak?

Now is the time to start putting forth a real plan on how to address the real challenges USM will be facing after Thames leaves (Tier level, accreditation issues, organizational structure, and how best to positively impact the local community and the State, this includes how to affect economic impact and it does matter.)

Now that would be a piece of cake, wouldn't it? How do you suggest that the faculty proceed in those endeavors? Sub-committees?

To continue to focus on Thames will likely have a negative impact on the quality and number of candidates to apply to lead USM as well as a negative impact on what role IHL allows AAUP and the rest of the faculty and staff to play, if any, in the selection process. It is time to take a longer range look and stop focusing on the current dysfunctions which will not likely end until Thames is gone.

Sometimes I think your heart and your head are in the right place, Coast Resident, but at other times . . . . well . . . . I do know your heart's there, but . . . .

Date: Mar 16, 2006

In reply to the 8th Dwarf:

Did you say that the faculty should decide the direction of the institution?

No. I said they should decide in which direction they would like to see USM move. The point being to form an established collective faculty voice which can better influence new leadership when it comes into place. Unorganized individuals and small groups complaining about the past (Thames et al) are much less likely to have any influence on IHL and a new administration as to what direction they chart for USM.

Do you think we're taking a more deviously low route?

No. I think many are unintentionally drawn onto a low route in constantly appearing to battle Thames et al on every little thing they do and say(knee jerk reaction) when they could be working toward a more forward looking approach (toward the time Thames is gone)and talking about what USM could be as opposed to complaining about what it is.

Would you suggest that the public be given earmuffs so that can't hear or that the faculty be given muzzles so they can't speak?

I would suggest that at this time some on the faculty be given muzzles when in public if all they have to say is something negative about Thames and company. If they have something positive to say about where they think USM could go in the future then by all means articulate it, but be positive not negtative.

Now that would be a piece of cake, wouldn't it? How do you suggest that the faculty proceed in those endeavors? Sub-committees?

It is called leadership and it is not a piece of cake. It is hard work and a committee or subcommittee might be a start. The important thing is to start.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

You have two committees already. You have a Faculty Senate and the AAUP. You must not participate in either one, because they ARE talking about the future of USM without Thames. However, many fear a big push to extend Thames' time in office past May '07; therefore it's important to keep a light shined on his true nature and his actions.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Community observer wrote:

You have two committees already. You have a Faculty Senate and the AAUP. You must not participate in either one, because they ARE talking about the future of USM without Thames. However, many fear a big push to extend Thames' time in office past May '07; therefore it's important to keep a light shined on his true nature and his actions.

I am not a member of the AAUP nor the USM faculty. And I am aware of the Faculty Senate and the AAUP and that they are looking to the future, which was my point to The 8th Dwarf. My main point concerns what is posted here on this board and what many say in public which are comments/complaints about Thames (their words/complaints are not going to change anything which should be clear to all now) when what should be said are postive comments about where USM can head in the future (without Thames). This is about how best to influnce the public and IHL as we approach an administration change. I believe strongly that IHL is well aware of Thames poor management style and will not for a serious minute consider extending his stay at USM.

We all should consider how best this board can be used to support a postive image. This is after all part of the issue/concer AAUP has with regard to sponsoring this board.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

... I would suggest that at this time some on the faculty be given muzzles when in public if all they have to say is something negative about Thames and company. If they have something positive to say about where they think USM could go in the future then by all means articulate it, but be positive not negtative. ...

I just had a hunch that your bottom line was to shut up people on this board. Coast Resident, the message is still trying to get out. Your own post proves the message hasn't been received as yet by the public.

The IHL Board made a grievous mistake 3 years ago with the appointment of SFT. They had more than one opportunity to get rid of him before his term ends, but instead gave him another year. The IHL did major damage to higher education in this state then and, with the present search process at MSU, continues to indicate to me that they don't understand and appreciate higher education and scholarship. I realize they are in a very poor state, with too many universities, and are susceptible to suggestions of easy economic development methods. But they need to include faculty in their list of stake holders or the system will decay from within, much as USM is doing. Our only hope is people will read and think (even not the discussion is not on positive, feel good issues) and realize the problem. Your suggestions for discussion are being done in the Councils, Senate and AAUP, but what you want is usually the outcome of a self-study on the university mission, as Fleming conducted.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Warrior wrote:

I just had a hunch that your bottom line was to shut up people on this board. Coast Resident, the message is still trying to get out. Your own post proves the message hasn't been received as yet by the public.

What message would that be? That Thames has been a disater? That the majority of the faculty disapproves of him and his administration? That USM continues to this date to experince dsyfuntion? All of this is well known to anyone near to USM and to the members of the public who are watching and reading about it. Many like you appear to take the view that you are behind in the polls and its time to launch a negative campaing to counter attack. The only problem with this approach is that you do not have a canidate in the race. IHL will, as it stands now, pick the next head of USM with or without faculty/staff input. The odds of obtaing such input will be greatly enhanced by presenting a united faculty with a vision of where USM might head in the future. At least then when it gets to crunch time and it looks as if IHL may ignore/exclude faculty input, you have a much better argument to make to the public and may not be viewed as "those out of touch faculty members who are never satisfied with anything." This is a public affairs war the faculty needs to win if it is going to regain a voice in leading USM. Anything else is pointless.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

Warrior wrote: I just had a hunch that your bottom line was to shut up people on this board. Coast Resident, the message is still trying to get out. Your own post proves the message hasn't been received as yet by the public. What message would that be? That Thames has been a disater? That the majority of the faculty disapproves of him and his administration? That USM continues to this date to experince dsyfuntion? All of this is well known to anyone near to USM and to the members of the public who are watching and reading about it. Many like you appear to take the view that you are behind in the polls and its time to launch a negative campaing to counter attack. The only problem with this approach is that you do not have a canidate in the race. IHL will, as it stands now, pick the next head of USM with or without faculty/staff input. The odds of obtaing such input will be greatly enhanced by presenting a united faculty with a vision of where USM might head in the future. At least then when it gets to crunch time and it looks as if IHL may ignore/exclude faculty input, you have a much better argument to make to the public and may not be viewed as "those out of touch faculty members who are never satisfied with anything." This is a public affairs war the faculty needs to win if it is going to regain a voice in leading USM. Anything else is pointless.

The message about SFT is out there; the message about the IHL is still not getting through. We can agree to disagree, but I have no idea how you can accomplish your goal. In fact, I know it is impossible because those like myself will never let it rest. The powers that be have produced this state-of-affairs, but aren't taking credit for it. The only way I see that your "suggestion" is possible is if the university faculty, without the administration, studies the mission of USM and publishes the results. That isn't going to happen.

I enjoyed our exchange. But you better get use to us pointing out the "next stupid thing" until the cows come home.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Warrior wrote:

Coast Resident wrote: Warrior wrote: I just had a hunch that your bottom line was to shut up people on this board. Coast Resident, the message is still trying to get out. Your own post proves the message hasn't been received as yet by the public. What message would that be? That Thames has been a disater? That the majority of the faculty disapproves of him and his administration? That USM continues to this date to experince dsyfuntion? All of this is well known to anyone near to USM and to the members of the public who are watching and reading about it. Many like you appear to take the view that you are behind in the polls and its time to launch a negative campaing to counter attack. The only problem with this approach is that you do not have a canidate in the race. IHL will, as it stands now, pick the next head of USM with or without faculty/staff input. The odds of obtaing such input will be greatly enhanced by presenting a united faculty with a vision of where USM might head in the future. At least then when it gets to crunch time and it looks as if IHL may ignore/exclude faculty input, you have a much better argument to make to the public and may not be viewed as "those out of touch faculty members who are never satisfied with anything." This is a public affairs war the faculty needs to win if it is going to regain a voice in leading USM. Anything else is pointless. The message about SFT is out there; the message about the IHL is still not getting through. We can agree to disagree, but I have no idea how you can accomplish your goal. In fact, I know it is impossible because those like myself will never let it rest. The powers that be have produced this state-of-affairs, but aren't taking credit for it. The only way I see that your "suggestion" is possible is if the university faculty, without the administration, studies the mission of USM and publishes the results. That isn't going to happen. I enjoyed our exchange. But you better get use to us pointing out the "next stupid thing" until the cows come home.

Hey Warrior and Coast Resident. Both of your points are good, and the tactics are not mutually exclusive. We do need think about (and publicly express) the short and long term aspirations of the faculty for USM. But we also need to continue to be vigilant each time the 'crew attempts the NST. If the latter is ignored, this bunch will continue to order filet and expensive wine for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and then stiff us with the bill on their way out the door.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Psych Prof wrote:

Hey Warrior and Coast Resident. Both of your points are good, and the tactics are not mutually exclusive. We do need think about (and publicly express) the short and long term aspirations of the faculty for USM. But we also need to continue to be vigilant each time the 'crew attempts the NST. If the latter is ignored, this bunch will continue to order filet and expensive wine for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and then stiff us with the bill on their way out the door.

Trying to use that Psychology on us, Psych Prof?

Well, it worked. I can agree with this. Y'all work of the future, big issues, and I will take the easy job of yelling about the NST. (While you're at it why don't you decide on who our next president will be and how to get us out of Iraq.)