Faculty Senate Meeting - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 18, 2004

Faculty Senate Meeting

Date: Jun 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: AD
"her resume was not an "academic resume""

Of course. Who would expect the Vice President of Research at a large university to use an academic resume?

Good God. What is the current body count attributable to this woman?

Date: Jun 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Leaving ASAP
"Apparently AD now understands the misunderstanding and said her resume was not an "academic resume", but rather more a professional one. "

In academia, there is no difference between an academic resume and a professional resume. Professionally, we are academics.

When, oh when, is AD moving on?

Date: Jun 18, 2004

Could someone post the text of the Angie Dvorak resolution here?

I am sure there is wide interest in exactly what it says.

And...

Is the Faculty Senate going to put forward the right kind of policy on surveillance of telephone and computer communications? Or is it going to keep conceding the initiative on those issues to Shelby Thames?

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Could someone post the text of the Angie Dvorak resolution here?
I am sure there is wide interest in exactly what it says.
And...
Is the Faculty Senate going to put forward the right kind of policy on surveillance of telephone and computer communications? Or is it going to keep conceding the initiative on those issues to Shelby Thames?
Robert Campbell"

Robert,
The resolution was approved pending editorital changes which still must be done. It should be posted on the FacSen web site when completed.

There is an excellent committee of faculty, staff and community professionals working on the Drug and Alcohol Policy. The procedure includes discussions and feedback from all parties. "SHARED GOVERANCE"!!

A senator mentioned today that a policy on surveillance should be done in the same way. That will be an item for the new senate to work on.

Date: Jun 18, 2004

Was there any person who attened the meeting today that can expalin the true nature of the meeting other than LEAVING. ????? WHO got this info that it was a communication mishap?

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Query!
"Was there any person who attened the meeting today that can expalin the true nature of the meeting other than LEAVING. ????? WHO got this info that it was a communication mishap?
"

Query,

The following is from today's Hattiesburg American concerning the resolution.

"In a prior meeting with Dvorak, senators Jim Crockett and Pat Smith said they asked her about her resumÈ stating she had been a tenured associate professor of English at the University of Kentucky while serving as president of Ashland Community College. At the time of her service, the community college was under the umbrella of the University of Kentucky system.

Dvorak explained to Crockett and Smith that she sent a professional resumÈ to USM when applying for the position of vice president of research and economic development and not an academic resumÈ, Crockett told the senators.

"The truth is that she's just not an academic and she didn't understand how we would've interpreted that," said Crockett, a member of the ad hoc committee on Credentials and Hiring and Tenure Processes."

So this was from the report of the Senate's ad hoc committee on credentials etc who were charged with the investigation of the evidence provided by the AAUP.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

Right on Tinctoris. You got it.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

You've got to be kidding. When I read the first post on this thread I thought it was a spoof. Is this really considered resolved and just a matter of miscommunication?!?! Why is anyone buying into that? Professional vs. academic (see Foot Soldier's post)?!?!? There's got to be more to this....there just has to be.....

No Quarter!

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Let Freedom Ring
"You've got to be kidding. When I read the first post on this thread I thought it was a spoof. Is this really considered resolved and just a matter of miscommunication?!?! Why is anyone buying into that? Professional vs. academic (see Foot Soldier's post)?!?!? There's got to be more to this....there just has to be.....
No Quarter!"

Yes, Freedom, that is all there appears to be on this.

It was mentioned at the FacSen meeting that all of this could have been resolve last December if SFT had gotten AD and AAUP together and had her say what she said to FS. Something like, "Oh, I can see that the resume is confusing to you. I will change it to read tenure Ass. Prof. of English under the U of K division of Community Colleges, Ashland C.C." But instead she implied she would sue anyone questioning her credentials. And SFT stood by her as she made the statement.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

If she is "not an academic" then she is clearly in the wrong job.

Her job IS ACADEMIC. Research is ACADEMIC.

AD should go back to the Mississippi Technology Alliance or some other bogus organization that can't see through her.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

Otherside,

Am I missing something, or did the Faculty Senate just roll over and put all four paws up in the air on this issue?

I just read the Hat Am article, which is available here

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040619/southernmissnews/673644.html

and I see at least two gaping omissions in the Faculty Senate's response.

(1) The job that Dvorak applied for requires "an academic resume." If she didn't know that, she was unfit for the job for that reason alone.

(2) If AD doesn't have tenure from a four-year institution, she is ineligible to evalute professors for promotion or tenure, as per the USM Faculty Handbook. Yet at USM evaluating professors for tenure or promotion is part of her job. What ever happened to that issue?

Either of these is a sufficient basis for the FS to demand her immediate resignation. Why hasn't it done that?

Robert Campbell

PS. Will AD ever have to answer questions about using Pileum to intercept Gary Stringer's emails before December 2003?

Date: Jun 19, 2004

Kudos to the faculty senate for its dogged insistence that the Dvorak business not be allowed to die without a proper resolution.

It appears that they were a little soft on AD, but one can understand why, rather than provoke another round of weeping and gnashing of teeth and digging in of heels, Crockett would have been willing to let AD weasel out of her deception by claiming that she didn't really know the difference between an "academic" and a "professional" resume. The fact is, however, that lying is lying, and in drawing this pseudo distinction between types of vitae, Dvorak shows that she hasn't quit doing it. There can be no question in anyone's mind that she deliberately constructed the entries on her vita to assert that she had been tenured "at" UK. Nobody does that sort of thing by accident or in ignorance. And her subsequent refusal to admit what she had done and her threat to sue anyone who called her on it simply confirms that this was a deliberate attempt to deceive, followed by an attempt to scare off anyone who might have the effrontery to challenge her wrongdoing.

And let us not forget that Shelboo is every bit as guilty as AD is in this. At the hearing in April he said he had "no problem" with Dvorak's vita. Which means either that HE doesn't know how to read a vita (which no one believes) or that he was--as has always seemed apparent--more interested in defending a lying member of his administration than he was in doing the right thing. He was, in short, consciously engaged in a face-saving cover-up all along.

Now, 3-1/2 months after the Glamser-Stringer firings, the results of the AAUP investigation having been fully verified by the senate and one of the culprits having admitted as much (Shelboo hasn't yet, but should be forced to), we can begin to tote up the cost of this whole, sordid mess: (1) the loss of scores of talented faculty members, including G&S, who either retired early or departed in disgust to greener pastures; (2) immeasurable damage, on a world-wide stage, to USM's reputation (with no hopes of repairing it in the foreseeable future); (3) the unnecessary expenditure, on the part of both the administration and the Glamser-Stringer adherents, of thousands of dollars in legal fees; (4) the price of the settlement G&S got (which must amount to over a quarter of a million dollars); and (5) the complete destruction of any atmosphere of trust and cooperation that might have made it possible for the administration and faculty to move forward toward mutually acceptable goals in very straightened economic times. Others could no doubt add to this list.

Can anyone believe all this? Or that the IHL board has allowed it to happen? Simply incredible! Or should I say, "Simply Mississippi!"

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Otherside,
Am I missing something, or did the Faculty Senate just roll over and put all four paws up in the air on this issue?
I just read the Hat Am article, which is available here
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040619/southernmissnews/673644.html
and I see at least two gaping omissions in the Faculty Senate's response.
(1) The job that Dvorak applied for requires "an academic resume." If she didn't know that, she was unfit for the job for that reason alone.
(2) If AD doesn't have tenure from a four-year institution, she is ineligible to evalute professors for promotion or tenure, as per the USM Faculty Handbook. Yet at USM evaluating professors for tenure or promotion is part of her job. What ever happened to that issue?
Either of these is a sufficient basis for the FS to demand her immediate resignation. Why hasn't it done that?
Robert Campbell
PS. Will AD ever have to answer questions about using Pileum to intercept Gary Stringer's emails before December 2003?"

Robert,
The ad hoc committee investigated the requirements for hiring upper level administrators (management) with, I believe, the state auditor. They reported there were "no requirements". SFT stated at one time he considered the position (VP research &ED) to be a staff position. The committee reported that AD said it isn't her problem if the position's job description didn't require her to be tenured or tenured tract.

It was also stated that she no longer participates in tenure "decisions", but only supplies information from her department when requested. Some Senators confirmed that their tenure letters had only the signatures of provost Hudson and Grimes.

Finally I agree with you and I think most senators thought the VP for research should be an academic. Maybe an E.D. officer would be staff. AD may fit the ED position, but is surely lacking in the research credentials.

The whole situation was cause by SFT not using standard search methods, i.e. national search with search committee.

So what's new?

Date: Jun 19, 2004

At first blush, the FS deal looks "soft", but I read the article before I saw any of your comments, and was struck by how much is actually said. I think more points were made in this somewhat low-key manner, and in a pretty good article, than might have been made otherwise. Any somewhat educated reader is going to wonder why she used the "wrong type" of vita and why she threatened to sue. I think the overall impact of the article is very negative for AD.

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Otherside, Am I missing something, or did the Faculty Senate just roll over and put all four paws up in the air on this issue?

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: As I see it
"Kudos to the faculty senate for its dogged insistence that the Dvorak business not be allowed to die without a proper resolution.

It appears that they were a little soft on AD, but one can understand why, rather than provoke another round of weeping and gnashing of teeth and digging in of heels, Crockett would have been willing to let AD weasel out of her deception by claiming that she didn't really know the difference between an "academic" and a "professional" resume. The fact is, however, that lying is lying, and in drawing this pseudo distinction between types of vitae, Dvorak shows that she hasn't quit doing it. There can be no question in anyone's mind that she deliberately constructed the entries on her vita to assert that she had been tenured "at" UK. Nobody does that sort of thing by accident or in ignorance. And her subsequent refusal to admit what she had done and her threat to sue anyone who called her on it simply confirms that this was a deliberate attempt to deceive, followed by an attempt to scare off anyone who might have the effrontery to challenge her wrongdoing.

And let us not forget that Shelboo is every bit as guilty as AD is in this. At the hearing in April he said he had "no problem" with Dvorak's vita. Which means either that HE doesn't know how to read a vita (which no one believes) or that he was--as has always seemed apparent--more interested in defending a lying member of his administration than he was in doing the right thing. He was, in short, consciously engaged in a face-saving cover-up all along.

Now, 3-1/2 months after the Glamser-Stringer firings, the results of the AAUP investigation having been fully verified by the senate and one of the culprits having admitted as much (Shelboo hasn't yet, but should be forced to), we can begin to tote up the cost of this whole, sordid mess: (1) the loss of scores of talented faculty members, including G&S, who either retired early or departed in disgust to greener pastures; (2) immeasurable damage, on a world-wide stage, to USM's reputation (with no hopes of repairing it in the foreseeable future); (3) the unnecessary expenditure, on the part of both the administration and the Glamser-Stringer adherents, of thousands of dollars in legal fees; (4) the price of the settlement G&S got (which must amount to over a quarter of a million dollars); and (5) the complete destruction of any atmosphere of trust and cooperation that might have made it possible for the administration and faculty to move forward toward mutually acceptable goals in very straightened economic times. Others could no doubt add to this list.

Can anyone believe all this? Or that the IHL board has allowed it to happen? Simply incredible! Or should I say, "Simply Mississippi!" "

As I see it,
I agree with most of what you say.

I believe the actual FS resolution is stronger than what is discussed in the HA article. It requests AD to correct her resume, web site and all other USM publications. It even states how the citation of her position at Ashland C.C should read to not be misunderstood.

Some (not sentors)think that SFT(with Roy Klumb's support?)took the opportunity in December to make this the issue in order to test tenure.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

LVN...I agree with you about the article in the paper. That was the first time anyone actually said in print that Shelboo "tried to fire" G/S--with the understanding that he was unsuccessful. Tenure did stand.

What I think is interesting is this. Obviously Shelboo and Angie could have made this statement in December. The fact that they didn't gives credence to the statements of those who said Shelby said "I hired me the meanest attorney I could find to fire me some tenured faculty." When the Dvorak thing came up, he and his fierce attorney thought they had a perfect opportunity. If the rumor is true that Stringer gave Shelby's son a C in a class, then he must have relished the opportunity to sock it to S. And Glamser had been so outspoken, particularly about the enrollment issue. Turns out he took on the wrong tenured faculty. Thank goodness for everyone else it was S and G.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ditto Boy
"LVN...I agree with you about the article in the paper. That was the first time anyone actually said in print that Shelboo "tried to fire" G/S--with the understanding that he was unsuccessful. Tenure did stand.
What I think is interesting is this. Obviously Shelboo and Angie could have made this statement in December. The fact that they didn't gives credence to the statements of those who said Shelby said "I hired me the meanest attorney I could find to fire me some tenured faculty." When the Dvorak thing came up, he and his fierce attorney thought they had a perfect opportunity. If the rumor is true that Stringer gave Shelby's son a C in a class, then he must have relished the opportunity to sock it to S. And Glamser had been so outspoken, particularly about the enrollment issue. Turns out he took on the wrong tenured faculty. Thank goodness for everyone else it was S and G."

I believe Ditto Boy summarized the situation accurately. It will be interesting if this is brought up at the new improved President's Council now that it has ELECTED reps from FS, besides the original members.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

i tend to agree with Robert Campbell. What some in the thread have omitted is the following: "Crockett said he posed the resolution to Dvorak and she told him she would be OK with its passing." So we have the faculty senate passing a resolution pre-approved by Dvorak. It's one she can live with. It's a good strategy if the senate wants to get closure on this issue. But it's a far cry from the tone and substance of the issue earlier. It makes one wonder why the resolution wasn't proposed earlier? Again, from the perspective of getting closure on the issue.

As I read the article two things came to mind. The line from Cool Hand Luke where the warden says "What we have heeere is a failure to communicate." (sorry I can't spell southern dialect) The other from the song that I think Peggy Lee sang--"Is that all there is to this?"

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i tend to agree with Robert Campbell. What some in the thread have omitted is the following: "Crockett said he posed the resolution to Dvorak and she told him she would be OK with its passing." So we have the faculty senate passing a resolution pre-approved by Dvorak. It's one she can live with. It's a good strategy if the senate wants to get closure on this issue. But it's a far cry from the tone and substance of the issue earlier. It makes one wonder why the resolution wasn't proposed earlier? Again, from the perspective of getting closure on the issue.
As I read the article two things came to mind. The line from Cool Hand Luke where the warden says "What we have heeere is a failure to communicate." (sorry I can't spell southern dialect) The other from the song that I think Peggy Lee sang--"Is that all there is to this?"
"

Stinky, this was quoted out of context by the HA and I believe it is leading people to incorrect conclusions.

A couple of senators felt the resolution was "too personal" in that it criticized only AD. (The paper quotes one of the senators on the last line of the article.) Drs Crockett and Smith rebutted this by saying that they had informed AD that their investigation would probably lead to a resolution pointing everything out. They said AD didn't seem concerned by that. AD didn't "approve" or even see the resolution, which was written in haste before the FS meeting and still needs editorial changes.

In fact, Crockett and Smith consulted each other at that point in the meeting, because I believe AD didn't actually say anything, so they were going on nonverbal signals that she understood, and wouldn't be offended by a FS resolution.

Again, this is my interpretation of what I observed and heard at the FS meeting.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" Stinky, this was quoted out of context by the HA and I believe it is leading people to incorrect conclusions. A couple of senators felt the resolution was "too personal" in that it criticized only AD. (The paper quotes one of the senators on the last line of the article.) Drs Crockett and Smith rebutted this by saying that they had informed AD that their investigation would probably lead to a resolution pointing everything out. They said AD didn't seem concerned by that. AD didn't "approve" or even see the resolution, which was written in haste before the FS meeting and still needs editorial changes. In fact, Crockett and Smith consulted each other at that point in the meeting, because I believe AD didn't actually say anything, so they were going on nonverbal signals that she understood, and wouldn't be offended by a FS resolution. Again, this is my interpretation of what I observed and heard at the FS meeting. "

Robert, and others. Contain your frustrations, please!

Listen to Otherside. Otherside is exactly correct. I was at the meeting. There was a Senate investigation by an adhoc committee of respected and savvy Faculty Senators. The investigation is focused on hiring and credential issues for administrators.

The committee members had long-awaited professional meeting with AD. I was pleased that they conducted themselves civilly and addressed the pertinent issues.

The investigation revealed

1) AD's vita re: the one item about tenure at Kentucky was innacurrate, according to reasonable academic standards. The resolution formally points that out. It also gives an entry recommendation that would be appropriate according to most reasonable academics and states that the tenure statement needs to be corrected on all University documents. The resolution is a formal action that allows tracking and followup. THAT part is about accuracy on her vita.

2) Hiring administrators- the ad hoc committee found that there are no State, IHL, or USM standards and critieria for administrative positions. There are only specific job descriptions developed by the university.

There is no doubt a mismatch between AD's credentials and her job description. The Senate understands this. This is not forgotten. Dr. Thames needs to address the issue of administrative hiring practices. His hiring practice did not allow for standard "traditional" and reasonable safeguards that the person in charge of Academic Research would be qualified and experienced in this matter. This part of the investigation continues, and includes discussions with Phil Bryant, and no doubt, Dr. Thames.

The Senate meetings and the work of the Senate continues next year. We have a list of issues from this year to carry into the next. The Senate has not not forgotten anything. Have faith.

There is no slacking going on, no backpedalling,

Date: Jun 19, 2004

Thanks for the back up Phoenix. You remembered the detailes. Your post cleared everything up.

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote: The Senate has not not forgotten anything. Have faith. There is no slacking going on, no backpedalling, "

I sure hope you're right because that IS how it looks. In my opinion allowing this to be called a "miscommunication" and considered resolved let's Angie & Shelby off the hook on a technicality. If it WAS just a "miscommunication," (ha ha) then Angie and Shelby should have to apologize big time to the whole community for what they put us all through, to Frank & Gary and their families, etc., because if she is now agreeing that it was a "miscommunication," this could easily have been corrected early on..... instead of Angie denying the problem and throwing threats of lawsuits around & Shelby backing her. Remember Shelby got the packet in December. Arghhh - I'd better stop now - the old blood pressure's arising!

No Quarter!

Date: Jun 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Let Freedom Ring
"
I sure hope you're right because that IS how it looks. In my opinion allowing this to be called a "miscommunication" and considered resolved let's Angie & Shelby off the hook on a technicality. If it WAS just a "miscommunication," (ha ha) then Angie and Shelby should have to apologize big time to the whole community for what they put us all through, to Frank & Gary and their families, etc., because if she is now agreeing that it was a "miscommunication," this could easily have been corrected early on..... instead of Angie denying the problem and throwing threats of lawsuits around & Shelby backing her. Remember Shelby got the packet in December. Arghhh - I'd better stop now - the old blood pressure's arising!
No Quarter!"

You've go to be kidding. Crockett is a politician from way back. He is a former administrator who cooked a deal to make it all go away. The question is what's he getting out of it?