daily rumor mill #31 (CEP special) - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 22, 2004

RE: daily rumor mill #31 (CEP special)

Date: Jun 22, 2004

Merit raises

Faculty at the University of Southern Mississippi have questioned whether the administration followed the proper procedures in deciding who received merit raises. The recipients of the merit-based raises:

College of Education & Psychology: Steve Yuen, Stan Kuczaj, Mitch Berman, Renee Falconer, Heather Sterling-Turner, Tammy Greer, Ann Blackwell, John Rachal, Randy Arnau, Ron Styron, Thelma Roberson, K.B. Melear.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Obijywk
"Merit raises Faculty at the University of Southern Mississippi have questioned whether the administration followed the proper procedures in deciding who received merit raises. The recipients of the merit-based raises: College of Education & Psychology: Steve Yuen, Stan Kuczaj, Mitch Berman, Renee Falconer, Heather Sterling-Turner, Tammy Greer, Ann Blackwell, John Rachal, Randy Arnau, Ron Styron, Thelma Roberson, K.B. Melear. "

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!! And we were suppposed to take this seriously? I think not!

Date: Jun 23, 2004

The date of his letter is telling. If he sent it via e-mail to the HA, it was probably read by Hanbury and Thames. Note that Stringer and Glamser were fired within one month. And I'll say this, if what he wrote is sincere, he was saying things about USM to prospective hires that I surely wasn't willing to say. He was saying things he knew weren't really true.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

USM faculty should keep in mind that all chairs, assoc. deans, deans etc. are part of "the Thames administration" unless they take a public stance against it (e.g., Amy Young, etc.). Kuczaj seemed to be playing the game necessary to do well in the admin he is now a part of (in writing the horrendous letter).

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: dr. bice
"USM faculty should keep in mind that all chairs, assoc. deans, deans etc. are part of "the Thames administration" unless they take a public stance against it (e.g., Amy Young, etc.). Kuczaj seemed to be playing the game necessary to do well in the admin he is now a part of (in writing the horrendous letter)."

We see that SK's letter was printed after the raise decisions and not before so the cause and effect was what? You are going after everyone and anything for what purpose? How is this helpful? Reasonable letters like this make much more of an impact in the community - also remember that it was BEFORE things blew up in March.

And so an administrator who is trying to hold a program together, recruit new people, maintain some semblence of normalcy, educate students in the here and now, keep something together for the "after-life", all while constantly fighting the administration from hell above and the malcontents below and the pot-shot takers from the outside is by definition part of the problem?

You'd have them all lay down on their swords and still not accomplish the ultimate goal? Don't you understand how much you are adding to the problem? There have been multiple threads complaining about how the community doesn't support the faculty...this is why! You eat your own. The pure pettiness on this website does not inspire either confidence in or loyalty towards the posters. It is not the way to garner support but then again, I sense that is not your real goal...you have an agenda and it is not to make USM a better place or to have it survive somewhat intact through this crisis.

Present Professor posted this on another thread: There is a subtle problem for us here -- how to continue to resist oppressive actions; discover and publicize bad decisions or inept or corrupt behavior . . . even as we try to convince people (supporters, potential students and interviewing faculty) that the university still has its best days ahead of it.

It is time to get out or get real about doing what you can with what you have...

Date: Jun 23, 2004

So, the letter came just after Stan's big raise. His letter served as his "thank you" card. BTW, wasn't his letter written about the same time as he was called on by all of the media to address the fact that the psych program on the coast had gone to hell? I seem to remember he was quoted heavily in that piece about the moratorium on that program.

I love your subtle reference to his prose as that great/reasonable letter. Great stuff.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Would Pretzel muzzle the faculty when they comment on or otherwise evaluate all letters published by the media? Perhaps Pretzel would muzzle faculty members only when they are commenting on only the letters written by other faculty members. Perhaps the muzzle would be placed on faculty members when their assessment does not correspond with Pretzel's assessment.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: obijywh
"Would Pretzel muzzle the faculty when they comment on or otherwise evaluate all letters published by the media? Perhaps Pretzel would muzzle faculty members only when they are commenting on only the letters written by other faculty members. Perhaps the muzzle would be placed on faculty members when their assessment does not correspond with Pretzel's assessment. "

Actually, I was bothered more by the cheap shots aimed at his scholarship, which is top-notch, and the implication that said research was not worthy of a "merit" raise. Yes, I do think the letter was reasonable, especially at the time it was written, but I understand that you don't agree with that and I respect your opinion - why can't you respect mine? Of course I don't think the faculty (or staff or community members) should be muzzled. I think that everyone should try and understand that this is an impossible situation and try and give some credit (or at least allowance) for the fact that most people are doing their best to operate within its crazy boundaries. The strongest message to the community was that 430 people agreed on one thing, obviously they don't agree on everything, but the message of solidarity is being diminished from within and not from the dome. If you really want to be effective, then discuss specifics and alternatives...do you not agree that new faculty and students need to be recruited? What's your plan to do it better?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: dr. bice
"USM faculty should keep in mind that all chairs, assoc. deans, deans etc. are part of "the Thames administration" unless they take a public stance against it (e.g., Amy Young, etc.). Kuczaj seemed to be playing the game necessary to do well in the admin he is now a part of (in writing the horrendous letter)."

Very nice and astute posting, dr. bice. You seem to characterize rather accurately the faculty-chair-dean-president relationship which sometimes seems to exist at USM. I do have some concerns, however, about chairs being part of the administration. Based on my observations elsewhere, a good chair identifies primarily with the faculty, not with the dean. If I am not mistaken when a university is "unionized" in other states, the department chair sits on the faculty side of the bargaining table, not on the administration's side of the table. There are, of course, chairs who view themselves firmly affixed to the dean's office, whether the dean is right or wrong. Those are usually very bad chairs. A major function of a chair is to provide an interface between the dean and the faculty, and this means that the chair must often intercede for the faculty and disagree with a dean who is sometimes not terribly knowledgable of the nuances of the department's academic discipline. A good chair outlives their effectiveness, and eventually returns to the faculty, not to the dean's office. I fully understand that a chair is appointed by the dean and serves at the pleasure of the dean. A good chair, however, is unwilling to "pleasure" the dean when a dean is clearly wrong or when a dean asks the chair to do something improper. Some chairs seem to "pleasure" their dean for their own self-serving benefit, and at the expense of the faculty they are supposed to represent. I trust that no chair at USM would do such a thing amidst the current crisis. Right?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

In the CEP, you will find a very toxic situation. You have Shebby's daughter in the mix, and that makes it a bad potion. In the CISE Dept. I noticed that only Renee Falconer got the merit raise. Oh yes, and Dana who has personally been the cause of several lawsuits - one of which will blow the top off of the Dome when it gets to court. I don't doubt that USM has a fine Psychology Dept. either - however no one can be a strong leader in that College right now. WP can't be the Dean he'd like to be because of the CISE Chair. Heck, a very good source says that WP stayed the Interim Dean while Shebby tried to figure out how he could get his daughter in that position without that nasty word Nepotism being flung at him - once again. Then the G & S situation occured and suddenly WP was elevated to Dean. I feel for all of them over there. SK has to play the game since Revenge is swift in the CEP.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic
" Yes, I do think the letter was reasonable, especially at the time it was written . . . "

SK's letter was written after all the deans were fired publicly, after
the FAR misinformation from the administration, after there was an attempt to
rewrite the Faculty Handbook to make it easier to fire tenured faculty,
after the bizarre provost swap, after the enrollment fiasco, after the
flawed drug and alcohol policy came out, after the selective raises
which did not follow proper procedure, after he got a good raise, and
after A. Dvorak threatened to sue any one who questioned her
credentials. I guess he's just an upbeat kind of guy, but he sure
doesn't seem to identify with the faculty.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic
"do you not agree that new faculty and students need to be recruited? What's your plan to do it better? "

Would I encourage anyone I truly respected to apply for a job at USM?? No, I wouldn't. If I was being recruited to be a faculty member, would I respect anyone who told me that it's presently a great environment with an administration that values its faculty? No, I wouldn't. The plan to "do it better" is to inject some ethical behavior in the Dome - if that means getting rid of people who aren't so self serving, well then, fine. I don't think anyone is really attacking SK - he's a fine scholar and is playing the game because as a Chair in the CEP - it's the only way to stay put.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lamont Cranston
"Based on my observations elsewhere, a good chair identifies primarily with the faculty, not with the dean. If I am not mistaken when a university is "unionized" in other states, the department chair sits on the faculty side of the bargaining table, not on the administration's side of the table. There are, of course, chairs who view themselves firmly affixed to the dean's office, whether the dean is right or wrong. Those are usually very bad chairs. A major function of a chair is to provide an interface between the dean and the faculty, and this means that the chair must often intercede for the faculty and disagree with a dean who is sometimes not terribly knowledgable of the nuances of the department's academic discipline. A good chair outlives their effectiveness, and eventually returns to the faculty, not to the dean's office. I fully understand that a chair is appointed by the dean and serves at the pleasure of the dean. A good chair, however, is unwilling to "pleasure" the dean when a dean is clearly wrong or when a dean asks the chair to do something improper. Some chairs seem to "pleasure" their dean for their own self-serving benefit, and at the expense of the faculty they are supposed to represent. I trust that no chair at USM would do such a thing amidst the current crisis. Right?"

Thanks very much for this Lamont. All chairs should read your post. For some of us who are leaving, not having any support at the chair or the dean's level was a deciding factor. When there is no one up the ladder you can trust and will go to bat for you, there is no reason to stay.

I'd like to refer back to yesterday's "bully" article in the NY Times, which talks about subordinates of bullies becoming bullies. I believe this has happened in many places on campus. (FYI, this comment is not meant to reflect on the discussion of S-K.)

Date: Jun 23, 2004

I'm no supporter of Thames by any stretch - but I think that (as pretzel logic stated) the faculty is now bogging down, and drowning each other in fits of petty jealousy. Reminds of something I learned in lifeguard training -- when approaching a drowning individual in the water you have to stop prior to reaching them and connect (with them) on a concious level because, at that point, a drowning person experiencing pure panic will do anything to stay alive; quite often they will climb you like a ladder and drown you in a futile attempt to reach air and oxygen.

To me, it seems like a lot of the remaining faculty resemble drowning swimmers in this respect, escaping en masse from what they perceive as a doomed ship, drowning each other in this unthinking, panicked behavior.

And, because of this behavior, you can likely be sure of one thing -- that Thames et al are sitting their offices, reading these ridculous, spiteful, unthinking, and sanguinely partisan (but mostly retarded) in-fighting posts between faculty and chuckling in delight as we tear each other limb-from-limb. Find something constructuve to do, you morons - leave, work harder, find solutions, visit an opium den, anything - just cut out the high-school histrionics.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Fedora Brown
"I'm no supporter of Thames by any stretch - but I think that (as pretzel logic stated) the faculty is now bogging down, and drowning each other in fits of petty jealousy. Reminds of something I learned in lifeguard training -- when approaching a drowning individual in the water you have to stop prior to reaching them and connect (with them) on a concious level because, at that point, a drowning person experiencing pure panic will do anything to stay alive; quite often they will climb you like a ladder and drown you in a futile attempt to reach air and oxygen. To me, it seems like a lot of the remaining faculty resemble drowning swimmers in this respect, escaping en masse from what they perceive as a doomed ship, drowning each other in this unthinking, panicked behavior. And, because of this behavior, you can likely be sure of one thing -- that Thames et al are sitting their offices, reading these ridculous, spiteful, unthinking, and sanguinely partisan (but mostly retarded) in-fighting posts between faculty and chuckling in delight as we tear each other limb-from-limb. Find something constructuve to do, you morons - leave, work harder, find solutions, visit an opium den, anything - just cut out the high-school histrionics."

To take your metaphor a step further....is it the faculty members' fault that they are drowning? In other words, who created the dangerous waters that they find themselves in? What would your advice for them be, other than for them to save themselves any way they know how?

Truth thinks that if you are looking for those who are "retarded" moronic name-callers, you should look no further than your own post.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" To take your metaphor a step further....is it the faculty members' fault that they are drowning? In other words, who created the dangerous waters that they find themselves in? What would your advice for them be, other than for them to save themselves any way they know how? Truth thinks that if you are looking for those who are "retarded" moronic name-callers, you should look no further than your own post. "

Truth, no! You've got to get over this notion that all of the faculty and professed "Thames Haters" and conspiracy theorists are right and noble. They're not. Some of them are just plain nasty. They have no great stake in the cause. They're not working hard to make meaningful changes. They are just causing turmoil on this website, trying to provide board entertainment and take cheap shots at their enemies, bosses, or more successful peers. I was just about to bounce Fedora's post up to a separate thread because I thought it was so good and then I saw yours. Devastating. I give up.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Well, shredding each other certainly isn't going to accomplish much, is it? I admit, I was wrong in name calling, but I am so fed up with the blanket jingoists in USM politics - everyone is either 'all bad' and on 'their side' or 'all good' and on 'our side'; And exactly how is pointing a host of fingers and spouting vitriol 'saving themselves in any way they know how?' - please explain that comment, because I need someone to sum up how colleg-i-cide is a fruitful path towards change.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic
"Truth, no! You've got to get over this notion that all of the faculty and professed "Thames Haters" and conspiracy theorists are right and noble. They're not. Some of them are just plain nasty. They have no great stake in the cause. They're not working hard to make meaningful changes. They are just causing turmoil on this website, trying to provide board entertainment and take cheap shots at their enemies, bosses, or more successful peers. I was just about to bounce Fedora's post up to a separate thread because I thought it was so good and then I saw yours. Devastating. I give up."

How can you think that a post that calls faculty members "retarded" and "moronic" is good? Basically, Fedora's post engages in the same name-calling that s/he calls for an end to. I can't get behind that.

I'm not saying that all faculty members are righteous and good. What I am saying is that SFT started this mess, and it's his to clean up. People vent here because there's no place else to do it (I've done it myself a time or two). If people don't like it, they can ignore it or post evidence to the contrary (something I've also done from time to time).

And how can you say that faculty members have no great stake in this cause? It's their workplace we're talking about...of course, they have a stake in it! (along with USM staff, students, and alumni). I just don't get this reaction at all. Sorry.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Fedora Brown
"Well, shredding each other certainly isn't going to accomplish much, is it? I admit, I was wrong in name calling, but I am so fed up with the blanket jingoists in USM politics - everyone is either 'all bad' and on 'their side' or 'all good' and on 'our side'; And exactly how is pointing a host of fingers and spouting vitriol 'saving themselves in any way they know how?' - please explain that comment, because I need someone to sum up how colleg-i-cide is a fruitful path towards change."

Sometimes people just need to vent. Period.

As for "shredding" others, the only thing I've seen close to shredding on this particular issue is the question raised about Stan K.'s political leanings with regard to SFT. Since SFT created this dysfunctional system, people start to wonder when they see SK's glowing letter to the HA right after he received one of the dysfunctional merit raises. People were just pointing that out.

Since there is no real vehicle for change at USM right now (since there is no shared governance happening that anyone can point to with any credible finger), people are frustrated. And frustrated people vent. Understand that this is part of the board; if you don't like it, you can ignore it or move on. I don't know what else to tell you.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

I don't think it's tough to sort out the legitimate complaints from the illegitimate. Those who went after Stan Kuczaj's scholarship because they didn't like his political behavior were, at the very least, shooting from the hip. Did they really fool anybody?

Nonetheless...SK was not behaving like a proper department chair (an advocate for the faculty in his department to the dean, rather than an advocate for the dean to the faculty in his department) when he wrote that February letter to the Hat Am. He said several things in it that he had to know were false and misleading. And just under a month later, Thames tried to fire Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer.

What SK ought to do now is write the Hat Am again, tell the truth about what is happening at USM, and retract his previous letter. If he truly wants to "move USM to the next level," he needs to strike a blow against an administrative regime that has pulled USM down and is hard at work pulling it down further.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I don't think it's tough to sort out the legitimate complaints from the illegitimate. Those who went after Stan Kuczaj's scholarship because they didn't like his political behavior were, at the very least, shooting from the hip. Did they really fool anybody? Nonetheless...SK was not behaving like a proper department chair (an advocate for the faculty in his department to the dean, rather than an advocate for the dean to the faculty in his department) when he wrote that February letter to the Hat Am. He said several things in it that he had to know were false and misleading. And just under a month later, Thames tried to fire Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer. What SK ought to do now is write the Hat Am again, tell the truth about what is happening at USM, and retract his previous letter. If he truly wants to "move USM to the next level," he needs to strike a blow against an administrative regime that has pulled USM down and is hard at work pulling it down further. Robert Campbell"

I am seeing parallels between what is happening at USM now with middle/upper administration and the Vichy government in France during the occupation of France in WWII: The Deans, some Chairs, etc during the Thames administration are cooperating, playing both sides, and will be remembered infamously when Thames is gone. Some of the Vichy at USM are worse than others. Any body got hair clippers?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Robert and Truth,

Amen, amen, amen. SK is in a precarious position, and he is a smart man. But, if he can put his head down on a pillow and sleep blissfully at night - he's a different type of person from those who can no longer remain silent. But, if we look at this truthfully, the most silent College will be the CEP becuz that's where Shebby's daughter is housed. It's a wayward resting spot for right now.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

mitch, you were sent in to do some damage control - where are you now --- Baton Rouge perhaps?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Phoenix
"I am seeing parallels between what is happening at USM now with middle/upper administration and the Vichy government in France during the occupation of France in WWII: The Deans, some Chairs, etc during the Thames administration are cooperating, playing both sides, and will be remembered infamously when Thames is gone. Some of the Vichy at USM are worse than others."

Do you suppose something is in the water over at the water over in the CEP building? Would bottled water help?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: daily rumor mill #31 (CEP spec