daily rumor mill #26 - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 21, 2004

daily rumor mill #26

Date: Jun 21, 2004

I find it very confusing that the one college whose dean warned, in writing, against the flawed mid-year raise process and who, subsequently, provided the information through FOI to FACSEN that the names of those recommended for raises at the college level were changed (people added, people deleted) by the provost is the one now being blasted for the mid-year raises. I also find it confusing that when JH was the Risk Manager, everyone seemed to respect and admire the real university attorney but now that the real university attorney is making decisions...

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: gurunuburg
"1. 3. Just got a package from envelope. It seems that certain CBED faculty are gathering evidence for some type of legal action regarding activity evaluations. Also, a whole department reportedly is "moving away" from scholarly research and into "other activities" that get rewarded in the college. Thanks envelope (will go through the materials more in depth this week).
"

If you're looking at the same stuff I've seen, the issue seems to be that if HD knows what's being rewarded he isn't telling. What's HD got to hide?

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic
"I also find it confusing that when JH was the Risk Manager, everyone seemed to respect and admire the real university attorney but now that the real university attorney is making decisions..."

Please direct me to the "Guru Rumor" regarding the college attorney. I sure missed that one. Or maybe Pretzel just went from point A to point E without bothering with B, C, or D?

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic
"I find it very confusing that the one college whose dean warned, in writing, against the flawed mid-year raise process and who, subsequently, provided the information through FOI to FACSEN that the names of those recommended for raises at the college level were changed (people added, people deleted) by the provost is the one now being blasted for the mid-year raises. I also find it confusing that when JH was the Risk Manager, everyone seemed to respect and admire the real university attorney but now that the real university attorney is making decisions..."

I think you're going to be even more confusing now that the CBED dean is facing FOIA requests directed at his decisions and conduct.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

Well, the Foundation web site is still a "shell", that is for sure. The only working link STILL is the one for Foundation Staff, after many, many months of being completely offline or only showing a single home page...

http://www.usm.edu/foundation/

Not a wonderful way to give information about the capital campaign or any other fundraising endeavors. Quite sad.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: BogusBoy
" the Foundation web site is a "shell", that is for sure. The only working link STILL is the one for Foundation Staff, . . . Not a wonderful way to give information about the capital campaign or any other fundraising endeavors. "

The "online giving" link is up, but it opens to an Alumni Association page. And it links to Jim Wild, who is one of the "disappeared."

Don't these people talk to each other?

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic
"I find it very confusing that the one college whose dean [once did the right thing] is the one now being blasted for the mid-year raises.

I also find it confusing that [once upon a time, compared to Jack Hanberry] everyone seemed to respect and admire the real university attorney but now that the real university attorney is making decisions...[he may actually be held accountable for them]."

Logic--

It really can be confusing. The italicized additions are mine. I hope they help you work through this. Just because somebody did the right thing yesterday does not earn them a free ride today. It might buy a little time, but not a pass.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Please direct me to the "Guru Rumor" regarding the college attorney. I sure missed that one. Or maybe Pretzel just went from point A to point E without bothering with B, C, or D? "

I'm sorry Invictus, I did jump from A to E. Guru reports that HD is being FOI'd by CBED faculty unhappy with the mid-year raise process. It seems ironic to me that Dean Doty has been widely reported as the dean Hanbury directed the now infamous memo to. This, plus information on the old website, pretty much assures us that Doty responded to FACSEN with the requested mid-year raise info, info that clearly showed the provost's role in the raise debacle. During the reign of the Risk Manager who interfered with the ability of the true legal counsel to function, LG was silent. People who knew him defended his competence and integrity. Now, without a risk manager to usurp his role, LG is active. The deans are no longer being forbidden to get his counsel. On this website, Doty has been criticized for multiple legal issues. I am assuming that the university attorney provided counsel in each of these areas and I was further questioning why that advice would not be considered sound even if unpopular. Seems to me that it would be.

Ram, I understood part of your message but not all of it. I remain confused about how the guy who was touted as the stand-up guy who promoted shared governance, scholarship, and integrity has now become such a pariah. Based on the posts here, it sounds like some people are angry that they didn't get raises and some people are angry that they (or their colleagues) are now leaving the university for other better-paying jobs at arguably better universities. Wasn't all this true months ago? When the raises were published in the paper, weren't people upset then? Why has it become such an issue now? Why is it only in CBED? All the colleges had lists that differed from Dept Chair to Deans, from Deans to Provost, and from Provost to recipients. What happened to the outrage about a flawed process? When did this become about the individuals who didn't get raises and if that is what it has become, why aren't the 90% of faculty who did not get the raises furious?

Some people are trying pretty hard to discredit, undermine, and terminate Dean Doty right now. With TH actively trying to fire him, SFT biding his time to fire him, AD po'd at him about the role he played in the downfall of her husband and friend, KM running wild with Economic Development and the entire ED group being allowed by TH, AD, JG, or SFT directly, to flout all CBED policies and procedures, and some disgruntled faculty members who didn't get raises, it makes for strange bedfellows... Who could it be? What difference does it make, they have found a common goal...get rid of Dean Doty. It's a shame because Doty's been fighting as hard as anyone and much harder than most to save this damn sinking ship...

Let's forget about Doty for the time being...I think you'll end up accomplishing your goals there... So, Doty aside, what is it that you want to accomplish in CBED and in the university? Deal with some reality. You can't step back in time to before the reorganization; it happened. You can't make Ken Malone a business scholar, Tim Hudson trustworthy or desirous of quality, Angie Dvorak an academic, or Shelby Thames a good administrator. You can't effectuate a change at the IHL level. You can't stop the market forces that pay business profs more than other disciplines, that make business profs more marketable than those in other disciplines, or cause the salary inversions between ABDs and seasoned profs. With the funding constraints in Mississippi in general and USM in particular, you can't bring the entire faculty up to regional, let alone national, salary averages. You can't get your most talented faculty to take leadership roles. You can't get the faculty body to stop cannibalizing itself long enough to agree on goals, strategies, and priorities.

Please, enough with the tearing down, the decades old grudges, and the cheap shots...make some concrete recommendations...What do you want? How do you propose to get there?

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic

" Ram, I understood part of your message .... I remain confused about how the guy who was touted as the stand-up guy who promoted shared governance, scholarship, and integrity has now become such a pariah. "

I didn't intend to tout or endorse Dean Doty as "the stand up guy who..." It is only my understanding that he was one of at least two of the deans (a) who responded to the Faculty Senate request for information, (b) who consulted "misguided" outside attorneys, (c)resulting in the now-infamous e-mail from JH. Good for Dean Doty. Seriously. Irrespective of what his motives were (and who knows what his motives were?), I think he did the right thing. Then. Should that make him "pariah proof" now? If so, for how long?

I don't know nearly as much about Dr. Doty as you clearly do. I have not attacked him. I am simply explaining why someone in whom some people saw some positive quality at some point might later be criticized by some of those same people or other people, based on his later actions or even based on later interpretations of his actions. The list of his perceived persecutors that you enumerate makes me feel as sorry for him as I possibly can for somebody who willingly came to this situation and did not have it forced upon him, as did the vast majority of the people who are suffering almost as much as you seem to think he is. Said folks not being nearly so well compensated.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

I want one thing. I want Shelby Thames out, after that we rebuild the University to what is was so it can grow to what it can be. Everything else is secondary.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

RAM,

What you have posted is an articulate evaluation of a puzzling concept. Frankly, I've tended to believe that faculty in CBED might have the "smarts" to have figured out how to unify and question the process. I know that in many other Colleges, people who were on THE list for a merit raise didn't receive it, and understandably they are ****ed off about it. I would be. The process was horribly flawed. But it occured back in the days (say, winter 2004 - how long ago it seems now) when SFT & Co. were running rampant with the so-called rules of professional behavior. Oh, SFT has toned it down to some extent, but toning it down - as I'm sure you will agree - doesn't mean that he's changed. His biggest attempt to date is to try to figure those of us who oppose him out so he can find a new way to circumvent propriety. He's now acknowledged us in his own special way, but he's too addicted to power to be able to change his evil ways (baby). Follow the money, and we'll bring down the Emporer of the Dome.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

i don't know if this is the appropriate thread to add this to but i've heard many deans would love to have their mid-year raise lists made public. they contend that it was the provost (not SFT) who made the changes.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"RAM,
What you have posted is an articulate evaluation of a puzzling concept. Frankly, I've tended to believe that faculty in CBED might have the "smarts" to have figured out how to unify and question the process. I know that in many other Colleges, people who were on THE list for a merit raise didn't receive it, and understandably they are ****ed off about it. I would be. The process was horribly flawed. But it occured back in the days (say, winter 2004 - how long ago it seems now) when SFT & Co. were running rampant with the so-called rules of professional behavior. Oh, SFT has toned it down to some extent, but toning it down - as I'm sure you will agree - doesn't mean that he's changed. His biggest attempt to date is to try to figure those of us who oppose him out so he can find a new way to circumvent propriety. He's now acknowledged us in his own special way, but he's too addicted to power to be able to change his evil ways (baby). Follow the money, and we'll bring down the Emporer of the Dome."

Thames may be a problem, but he isn't the only one. Faculty are fleeing CBED. Accreditation (with or without Educational Development is up in the air.) According to Broker in an earlier post, one of his CBED clients said the place is a wasteland, and he's right.

By the way, I've seen one of the FOIA requests to Doty and it has nothing to do with the merit raises you're talking about. It deals with decisions made by Doty.

It's easy to pass out information when most people agree with you. Somehow, I just don't think Doty will be quite as eager to hand out the information that deals with his shortcomings.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i don't know if this is the appropriate thread to add this to but i've heard many deans would love to have their mid-year raise lists made public. they contend that it was the provost (not SFT) who made the changes."

Then why don't they make them public?

Date: Jun 21, 2004

don't know. i assume they've been told by their immediate superior not to. don't forget the faculty senate was unsuccessful in an FOIA inquiry to get them. the grounds (according to SLT) was a personnel evaluation exclusion. personnel materials are generally excluded from FOIA inquiries. that's what makes me interested when i hear business faculty are trying to use that approach (FOIA) to get information about Doty. I guess i get a bit cynical when i hear certain "legal" avenues are going to be used to accomplish something. I remember on the old board when people talked about class action lawsuits. A week or two ago WDAM had a story the short of which was--plaintiffs can't have a class action suit in MS right now. i think we have to be cautious about stories about certain actions being taken.

Date: Jun 21, 2004

This is the crucial story - this is what we need to focus on and try to define and act upon. Follow the money

Date: Jun 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic
"
I'm sorry Invictus, I did jump from A to E. Guru reports that HD is being FOI'd by CBED faculty unhappy with the mid-year raise process. It seems ironic to me that Dean Doty has been widely reported as the dean Hanbury directed the now infamous memo to. This, plus information on the old website, pretty much assures us that Doty responded to FACSEN with the requested mid-year raise info, info that clearly showed the provost's role in the raise debacle. During the reign of the Risk Manager who interfered with the ability of the true legal counsel to function, LG was silent. People who knew him defended his competence and integrity. Now, without a risk manager to usurp his role, LG is active. The deans are no longer being forbidden to get his counsel. On this website, Doty has been criticized for multiple legal issues. I am assuming that the university attorney provided counsel in each of these areas and I was further questioning why that advice would not be considered sound even if unpopular. Seems to me that it would be."

Thanks. I sorta follow it now. Of course, your logic is twisted up like a, well, you know!

You are assuming that HD bothered to consult the university attorney in all these cases. Anything to back up the assumption?