I have not received notice. I was told by my dean that he thought they needed to be forwarded to the IHL by the President's office this week, and tha SFT looked at each and every one with a fine tooth comb. In years past, the Provost sent a nice little note (at least I got one when I hit associate) signifiying the VPs' recommendation to the President. The President and IHL were then pro forma. I'm not sure how or when this administration this year plans to notify candidates. I didn't get a note between the Provost and recommendation to the Preseident step. I would hope we receive some letter this week or next. Hate to hear about it in the HA.

SFT is capable of anything.  He sat on a favorable letter from the Provost and VP of Research congratulating a certain person of Tenure and Promotion and waited it out through July,  allowing the person to read that she had not received promotion and tenure by virtue of the fact that her name wasn't included in the list posted in the HA.  His first contact with her was when he terminated her August 30, 2002.  He refused to respond to her attorney's phone calls and certified letters. However, those were those "glory days" when had first entered his position thinking that he was invincible.  This certain person has moved on - but her lawsuit is still a legacy of the Thames administration.  Oh yes, her chair was Dana Thames.

Let me add that the person who was denied the T and P by SFT's last minute execution has gone on to prove that USM is one warped academic place. She's developed research projects (many funded by nationally recognized grants), been recognized nationally for her Best teaching practices, and has been at the helm of several national writing initiatives. The fact that Dana Thames didn't like her and her daddy protected his daughter didn't seem to affect anyone concerned with national literacy concerns.  Another example of the SFT's self-indulged blunderings concerning nepotism, cronyism and personnel issues.

When Melissa was hit by the Thames corruption, she was devastated. She was actually one of the first few who got to feel the nepotimistic backlash of being attacked since her brilliance far exceeded her erstwhile chair. I remember that she had to move her children from the area, she went on unemployment until she secured another job, and she was forced to be one of the first who spoke out publicly against the inept gnome who denied her a well deserved promotion and tenure.  It's odd that in the IHL reports, nothing is reported about the legal expenses the university has had to pay for her particular lawsuit - ongoing since 2002 and still continuing in her favor.

It's true that the cream rises to the top and she has maintained a well-deserved reputation connected with literacy concerns (mostly in writing) in the secondary education area.  Living well must be her best revenge against USM.  Staying tight with key players here is also the evidence that she knows who remain her enemies.

Herald wrote:

---

Living well must be her best revenge against USM. 

---

Living well is all of our best revenge against USM.

I heard that not all deserving applications were approved. In specific, I was told that one was denied because of "not enough grants/contracts." Can anyone confirm this? If true, SFT is not nearly as passive/lame duck as some would lead you to believe.

romur wrote:

---

The story I heard was that a CoB person was denied.  The particular application is the one talked about on this board some weeks ago, the one that the management and marketing seniors sabotaged along with help from DHD.

---

Who are you referring to that was sabotaged?  Maybe Cossack has some idea who got denied.

Count