A CoAL source told me that El Pood took DvH's resignation very hard, was in tears in fact, and, again according to this source, was lamenting his own poor leadership skills, which he felt had triggered vH's resignation.

Where's that line, in Euripedes? "In dreams, pain falls drop by drop upon the soul/Until wisdom comes by the awful grace of the gods."

Pood left work today at 3:30 or so.  I heard he does this everyday.

There are some stories floating in every college. WLP set to resign so that Dana T can become dean (this on another thread), Pood resigns over DvH, even one I heard at the library about Doty resigning over increased teaching loads in the CoB (SFT wants a 4/4). Can anybody parse this all out?

What are the odds that USM loses 3 deans in 1 week?

Thames is banking on the fact that no one will be able to credibly stand against him after the face off with Psychology and the way that encounter was spun. Add a now-incompetent dean (NCATE screwup of some sort) and the recipe begins to smell familiar...like fish heads.

Has anyone seen the Chair of Marketing yet?  Still in Sweden?

It's about time wrote:

---

The so-called "face off" with psychology gave that department even more credibility in the eyes of those who understand.

---

Which could be as much as 5% of the faculty population. Two years ago, it would have gotten 95% support. You're right. It IS about time.

What is status of DvH?

Local Standard Time wrote:

---

CC, make that approximately 100% of the faculty population at major doctoral granting univesities elsewhere.

---

Let me stop laughing.

Two years ago, when Thames was still at the height of his power and no real end of his presidency was in sight, the Psychology plan would have been universally viewed as brave or heroic. Did Psychology speak out at that time? Some, but no more than any other college or area and much less than some CoAL areas. Remember that two years ago the Psychologists' leader, Dr. Berman, was an administrator who used to come on this very board and tell us how not every administrative decision was bad, etc., etc. Now Dr. Berman tells us that shenanigans are at work and that the administration has treated Psychology unfairly. What has changed in two years? The biggest thing that has changed is that Thames has only 1 more year to go. The IHL put an expiration date on his presidency. Two years ago, standing against Thames publicly simply to make a point was a heroic deed. Today, such a move is seen by many for what it is -- a play for political capital that had no chance of actually changing anything. Local Standard Time has to consult faculty elsewhere, because they operate with less than the entire fact set. USM faculty did not rally to Psychology's side, and there's a good reason. Psychology's move was egocentric rather than altruistic, and those who compare the Psychology gambit to Glamser and Stringer are perpetrating an injustice.

467 wrote:

---

This is B.S.  Some faculty senators have been discussing another No Confidence vote over several issues including the Psychology issue.  C.C is just making up stories.  

---

Some faculty senators want to discuss a No Confidence vote on a weekly basis. Go back and see just how much support the gambit got on this board, which is a bastion of all things anti-Thames. I believe it warranted one thread, and I'm not sure if that thread even got to a third page.