NE MS DJ, 4/16/06: Foglesong wants panel to suggest changes - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 17, 2006

NE MS DJ, 4/16/06: Foglesong wants panel to suggest changes

Date: Apr 17, 2006

info wrote:

Foglesong . . . . said his long-term goal is to make MSU the most respected land-grant institution in the southeast.

Those who have never worked at a university outside of Mississipi may not be aware of this, but MSU has a fine reputation elsewhere. It is every bit as respected overall as Mr. Faulkener's university in Oxford. I have no doubt that Foglesong's goal for MSU is attainable.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

I appears to me that Foglesong has his marching orders from IHL and they look similar to what Shelby's must have been. Make the place more productive and efficient and increase enrollment...and do this quickly.

Now here is where the differences begin. I don't know if anyone looked at the way USM did this (though I doubt it), but Foglesong is going to form a committee to recommend changes. Why didn't Shelby think of this? You make a committee and give them a 3 month deadline. Shelby said he didn't want to do this by committee because he (and/or IHL) didn't want to wait several years. The general figured it out, set a deadline. Now we all know that Foglesong (I hope I'm spelling his name right every time ) will not accept every recommendation that the committee makes, but there will be some ideas that he (and/or IHL) already wanted to make. These will be be carried out as recommended, and the prez will do other things that he wants to do. It looks like there was a compromise between faculty and administration and shared governance looks like it worked again, when really, the administration got everything it wanted. Even in the pre-Thames days, how many recommendations came out of a committee and were implemented exactly as the committee said. The dome has always tweaked things to fit what they wanted, they just didn't openly admit that the committees were useless to them.

The second difference is that Goodman is going to give Foglesong a honeymoon period. This was the original mistake of the faculty groups. If Foglesong starts to make bad decisions and the FS starts to complain, then people can at least say, well they gave him a chance. Unfortunately, because of the AAUP vote during the candidates visits, and some vocal faculty in the media, outsiders thought, well they never even gave him a chance, they were never going to work with him and they are going to complain about anything he does (right or wrong) because they just don't like him.

This second part is not a justification for Shelby (the consolidation of the colleges is just one of many poorly handled jobs where a similar outcome could have been reached without the alienation of faculty and staff), just a comparison I saw between MSU and USM.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

manova wrote:

The second difference is that Goodman is going to give Foglesong a honeymoon period. This was the original mistake of the faculty groups. If Foglesong starts to make bad decisions and the FS starts to complain, then people can at least say, well they gave him a chance. Unfortunately, because of the AAUP vote during the candidates visits, and some vocal faculty in the media, outsiders thought, well they never even gave him a chance, they were never going to work with him and they are going to complain about anything he does (right or wrong) because they just don't like him.

Manova,

The AAUP vote was our about our only chance to express our well-founded reservations about Dr. Thames as a candidate. We were hoping to avert the disaster that followed. It was not intended as a public relations maneuver. Professor Thames had quite a history at USM, and his presidency here unfolded just as his harshest critics predicted. If "people" could not grasp what we were trying to do with the AAUP vote, and if the intervening years have not proven us correct in their eyes, then the problem lies with them. I am satisfied that we did the right thing.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

manova wrote:

.. The second difference is that Goodman is going to give Foglesong a honeymoon period. This was the original mistake of the faculty groups. If Foglesong starts to make bad decisions and the FS starts to complain, then people can at least say, well they gave him a chance. Unfortunately, because of the AAUP vote during the candidates visits, and some vocal faculty in the media, outsiders thought, well they never even gave him a chance, they were never going to work with him and they are going to complain about anything he does (right or wrong) because they just don't like him. ...

But Thames was given a chance as a vice president. The AAUP vote was just the faculty voicing the result of that trial run.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

Mr. Wizard wrote:

The AAUP vote was our about our only chance to express our well-founded reservations about Dr. Thames as a candidate....

I understand with the reasoning behind the vote, but I disagree that this was the best or only way to tell the IHL that the faculty did not trust SFT because of his history. The IHL said several times that they would not consider the vote and they were angry that the AAUP was even doing this. The SFT pick might have been to spite the AAUP (though I really doubt it, Heart was going to take the UNH job and most people did not think Hicky was up to the job, the best decision would have been to scrap the search and start over, like they did at MSU...sorry, I got off topic).

The best way to communicate these concerns would have been to play by the IHL board's rules and have the faculty liaisons on the CAC communicate this to the board. This is who the board was prepared to listen to and consider. Anything else just made them mad. Plus, whether it was intended or not, it did look like a PR move. I know the outcome of the vote was correct, but it should have been done in private, as a way to direct how the faculty representatives on the CAC should respond when asked about the faculty opinion of SFT.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

But Thames was given a chance as a vice president. The AAUP vote was just the faculty voicing the result of that trial run.

Good point, and I don't think enough was made of this during the process. The public perception of SFT was that he created this great polymer program (#3 in the nation, right ) and that he would do the same thing for USM (the whole "world class" thing). The only thing that I remember that people really talked about from his VP stint was a letter that came from someone on the coast that talked about the time cards. Two problems, 1) there are many in the public that think profs should have a time clock, because if you are not sitting at your desk, you are not working (hey, I worked for a place that removed all chairs because if you are sitting down, that means you are not working) and 2) this guy was quickly dismissed as someone who had an axe to grind because he was drawing a 2nd full time paycheck and SFT put an end to that. I don't remember the details and that might not even been the same guy, but it doesn't matter, that is what the spin has put into my memory. That letter said SFT would put an end to lazy profs, exactly what some alumni wanted to hear.

Other than that letter, I don't remember anything else that was said about his VP run (or his chair or dean experience other than he could balance a budget). Nobody talked about why he got the boot (still don't talk about it). All of this just seemed like a non-issue. SFT was/is the only celebrity prof at USM (in that I mean, 5 years ago, if you polled people outside of USM and asked them to name one good prof at USM, I bet his name would have been most popular...after you told them that the football coach does not count as a prof ). The alumni really believed in him because of polymer science. The VP stuff was just too long ago.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

manova wrote:

Anything else just made them mad.

My, my. If this is true, it looks like the IHL's temper got the best of them

Date: Apr 17, 2006

MSU will be an interesting challenge for this new President. MSU has been fairly resistant to change in the past.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

manova wrote:

Mr. Wizard wrote: The AAUP vote was our about our only chance to express our well-founded reservations about Dr. Thames as a candidate.... I understand with the reasoning behind the vote, but I disagree that this was the best or only way to tell the IHL that the faculty did not trust SFT because of his history. The IHL said several times that they would not consider the vote and they were angry that the AAUP was even doing this. The SFT pick might have been to spite the AAUP (though I really doubt it, Heart was going to take the UNH job and most people did not think Hicky was up to the job, the best decision would have been to scrap the search and start over, like they did at MSU...sorry, I got off topic). The best way to communicate these concerns would have been to play by the IHL board's rules and have the faculty liaisons on the CAC communicate this to the board. This is who the board was prepared to listen to and consider. Anything else just made them mad. Plus, whether it was intended or not, it did look like a PR move. I know the outcome of the vote was correct, but it should have been done in private, as a way to direct how the faculty representatives on the CAC should respond when asked about the faculty opinion of SFT.

I think hindsight is a good thing Manova. But Wizard was right about why the AAUP sponsored the vote.

And a reminder that there have not been, until Tom Meridith came on board, faculty liasons to the Board. The Board simply does not speak to faculty. There had been a number of attempts behind the scenes for those "faculty liasons" who had contact with some members of the Board. They were either shut out or got some bit of hearing only to learn that the votes were basically already tallied.

If you look back you will find most of the faculty dissidants, after the vote, accepted the President and wished him well. Bill Scarborough was particalarly effective in communicating that. Leading up to the firing of the deans there were a number of actions by the administration, particularly in some very brutal firings of mid level staff, that raised faculty eye brows but very little real rebellion. It was when the Deans were unceremoniously dumped on their asses that the faculty senate and AAUP once again went public. The faculty was willing, if uneasy, to give Shelby a honeymoon. He got it. He ruined it.

It's all in the new papers -- I've just spent the last week cutting and clipping, so I had a good opportunity to review that period of time.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

MSU has a much greater chance of success than USM with their new president. The faculty is much more mature and level -headed at MSU than the faculty at USM.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

2D-Top:

Certainly just about any university faculty you could name would be more "mature"--in the sense of having a majority of tenured and senior professors--than USM. Shelboo the Great has effected an out and out purge of senior and tenured faculty. When the coup installed him, USM's faculty was about 75 percent tenured associate profs and full profs. Now, after 4 years of Shelboo's malice, vindictiveness and incompetence, USM's faculty is about 60 percent untenured.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

To the top wrote:

MSU has a much greater chance of success than USM with their new president. The faculty is much more mature and level -headed at MSU than the faculty at USM.

When I was on the faculty at MSU, it always seemed to me the attitude was pretty much like USM pre-Shelby.

I am sure if Doc treats faculty, staff, students, etc with a degree of respect he will in turned respected.

When you were at MSU what made you think faculty was so mature and level headed?