question about Glamser-Sringer affair - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 26, 2006

question about Glamser-Sringer affair

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Maybe because neither of them is innately sneaky, underhanded and dishonest, and it didn't occur to them to do anything other than follow the "chain of command" ?

Of course they greatly underestimated the evil they were up against??

Just speculation on my part, of course.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Outside looking in wrote:

Maybe because neither of them is innately sneaky, underhanded and dishonest, and it didn't occur to them to do anything other than follow the "chain of command" ?

Of course they greatly underestimated the evil they were up against??

Just speculation on my part, of course.

I know you are exactly right on both counts "outside looking in." I also think that Glamser, as AAUP pres, took the documents to a business ethics professor and asked for his advice. I think it was Carter, but whoever it was told him to turn everything over to Thames.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Winding Road,

The answer to your question came out in the hearing. When I received the packet which made serious charges about a high ranking member of the administration, I consulted with George Carter who teaches a course in business ethics. He advised me that the proper thing to do was to turn over the evidence to the person's immediate supervisor. In this case that was President Thames.

The packet was addressed to me as president of the local AAUP chapter so I also advised the executive committee of AAUP as to the contents of the packet. It was only after we received no response from the president that the executive committee proceeded with an investigation to determine the veracity of the charges.The detailed report of that investigation was sent to the president. When no response was received, we made the report available to every member of the IHL Board and to the Faculty Senate, which conducted its own investigation.

I used to wonder what would have happened to me and the university had I simply tossed the packet into the waste basket.

Frank Glamser

Date: Jun 26, 2006

George Carter is not a business ethics professor, he's an economics professor. I believe one of Kim Chaze's signature wins against USM came in an employment case against Carter and other business school administrators back in the '90s. The ethics professors are all in COAL, where Glamser and Stringer themselves were at the time. More questions now.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

What "more" questions? It looks to me like Dr. Glamser answered the question that was asked.

As for Dr. Carter's correct designation and/or involvement in a lawsuit on a different matter, what does that have to do with this topic?

Date: Jun 26, 2006

LVN wrote:

What "more" questions? It looks to me like Dr. Glamser answered the question that was asked.

As for Dr. Carter's correct designation and/or involvement in a lawsuit on a different matter, what does that have to do with this topic?

Here are some questions I have. Carter has a long, well-established reputation in the CoB for being a "company man", following whatever orders come down the pipe. Did FG know this going into his interaction with Carter? If so, it seems to me that the old adage "consider the source" might apply. Why not submit the documents to an outside body for independent investigation. Carter's solution seems like a "keep it in the family" solution designed to minimize exposure of corruption at USM. Why give it to Thames, even after speaking with Carter? Carter's advice seems akin to "go give that $100 bill you found to the neighborhood thief for safekeeping."

As for Carter's involvement in the lawsuit, I can only say that an ethicist who violated the USM faculty handbook (so much so that USM settled AFTER the jury heard damning evidence in opening arguments) might need to have his ethics advice scrutinized.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

favorite mistake? wrote:

George Carter is not a business ethics professor, he's an economics professor. I believe one of Kim Chaze's signature wins against USM came in an employment case against Carter and other business school administrators back in the '90s. The ethics professors are all in COAL, where Glamser and Stringer themselves were at the time. More questions now.

George Carter did teach business ethics after working with COAL ethics faculty who were comfortable with Dr. Carter teaching the course and whose department was willing to approve him as an instructor of record. His credentials were well known to Frank Glamser who obviously felt comfortable consulting him about a course of action.

As for your reference about a Kim Chaze "signature win," the case you are referring to never went to trial, it was settled. The settlement was closed and most of the rumors about the settlement are nonsense. The parties to the suit could, I suppose, agree to open the settlement. My guess is that Dr. Carter and probably any other business school administrator involved would be more than happy to agree to such a disclosure. I doubt the same would be true of the complaining party, however. Rumors are so much more titilating than the facts, as we have discovered in a recent case.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

The case did get to opening statements, but not further. I find it strange that you are implying that USM settled but that the plaintiff would be embarrassed to have facts come out, but not the defendants who settled. I do know that Carter called the plaintiff's wife and said he was going to fire her husband. Carter was also not the chair any longer after the case was settled.

The point is that Glamser went to the wrong well on that one. Carter is "on the team."

Date: Jun 26, 2006

I have to agree with "favorite mistake" here.

The plaintiff essentially got what he was suing for, plus a little bonus. The only ones who know the specifics are the immediate participants, unless one of them has divulged information. I have tried to get the plaintiff to tell the tale before. He will not, because he agreed to confidentiality.

Carter's not one to buck the system. He's a member of the USM family, a retired Navy man, and will follow orders to the letter when directed from above. He's also not interested in open dialogue or airing of dirty laundry in public, cathartic though it may be.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

favorite mistake? wrote:

The case did get to opening statements, but not further. I find it strange that you are implying that USM settled but that the plaintiff would be embarrassed to have facts come out, but not the defendants who settled. I do know that Carter called the plaintiff's wife and said he was going to fire her husband. Carter was also not the chair any longer after the case was settled. The point is that Glamser went to the wrong well on that one. Carter is "on the team."

"Carter was also not the chair any longer after the case was settled." Not true. Dr. Carter continued as chair until the end of the fiscal year. The rumor that the settlement forced him to step down is not true as should be apparent now that he is once again chair.

How would you know what happened in a phone call between Carter and the plaintiff's wife?

On the last point, you are correct. Dr. Carter is a team player, but I might add he is nobody's lackey.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

If the fact that he is chair again now, a decade later, means that he didn't have to step down after the case, as you say, then the fact that USM settled with the plaintiff means that he (Carter) and the others did something bad.

You mention a recent case and what we learned in your first post. I thought that what we recently learned is that a former administrator (Martray) everyone always said was good turns out to be not-so-good afterall.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Do people outside the COB understand that these threads are set up from the beginning? There are a couple of people, scourge of the business college, who set up a new, and apparently unrelated, topic only to come back to their same old tired message.

Tiresome, predictable, boring.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Frank and/or Gary will have to verify this, but I have a recollection that Carter was on the G/S witness list--that he was willing to testify that Frank followed correct prcedure. In other words, unlike Lucas, who refused to testify that he told Scarborough he thought the university had "come of age" with the AAUP chapter and that he welcomed it, Carter was ready to be out and up front.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Same ol', same ol' wrote:

Do people outside the COB understand that these threads are set up from the beginning? There are a couple of people, scourge of the business college, who set up a new, and apparently unrelated, topic only to come back to their same old tired message.
Tiresome, predictable, boring.

You can't argue, so you start trying to discredit the poster. Nice going there. Why don't you start crying to the moderator?

The dirty deeds that go on at USM should surprise no one. The players may surprise some, however.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

FG wrote:

I used to wonder what would have happened to me and the university had I simply tossed the packet into the waste basket.

I'm trying to picture you pitching the packet, Frank, but I somehow I can't. You have to be able to look at yourself in the mirror in order to shave & while the moustache works OK, I think a full, untrimmed beard wouldn't look good on you, even if you are a biker.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Actually, most of us are just sick of you and the underhanded techniques you have of attacking the people you work with.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Present at the hearing wrote:

Frank and/or Gary will have to verify this, but I have a recollection that Carter was on the G/S witness list--that he was willing to testify that Frank followed correct prcedure. In other words, unlike Lucas, who refused to testify that he told Scarborough he thought the university had "come of age" with the AAUP chapter and that he welcomed it, Carter was ready to be out and up front.

Testifying that G&S "followed proper procedure" by giving information to Thames really had nothing to do with the case. They did submit information to Thames, who failed to act in a way we all feel would have been appropriate (i.e., he failed to have a real investigation of Dvorak).

When Thames failed to investigate, G&S moved forward (see Glamser's post above) with their own investigation. I wonder if Carter would have sanctioned that move. Something deep down in my bones tells me that he would have fallen back on the "it's above their [G&S's] pay grade" routine -- a routine I've heard too many times over the years. If so, that could have been severely damaging.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Present at the hearing wrote:

Frank and/or Gary will have to verify this, but I have a recollection that Carter was on the G/S witness list--that he was willing to testify that Frank followed correct prcedure.

What's the harm to Carter in that? I'm sure Thames would love to have it established via a hearing that correct procedure when something bad is discovered about a USM VP is to report it to the President, and to the President only. That way Thames can go to work supporting his VP and investigating those who would direct attention to his/their misdeeds. Carter probably would have gotten a nice raise for that.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Same ol', same ol' wrote:

Actually, most of us are just sick of you and the underhanded techniques you have of attacking the people you work with.

You have to fight fire with fire.

Years of watching the old boy network pull underhanded stunts has taught me a lot. What's the matter? Afraid Grasshopper might snatch that rock out of your hand and bloody your nose? [figuratively speaking, of course]

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Carter was also not the chair any longer after the case was settled." Not true. Dr. Carter continued as chair until the end of the fiscal year. The rumor that the settlement forced him to step down is not true as should be apparent now that he is once again chair.

Both George Carter and Tyrone Black stepped down within a month of the settlement of the case in question. There exit was part of the settlement. The University asked for negotiations after Kim Chaze's opening statements. In essence, the University caved as soon as the case went to trial. We do not know all of the details because none of the players has violated the conditions of the settlement, which they should not. Suffice it to say that these administrators were quite stunned to find that the Administration had sold them out so quickly. The moral of the story is, it is hard to know who can depend on in the world of USM. To quote that famous philosopher Coach Pat Dye, "sometimes you think you know, but then you know, you don't know."

Date: Jun 26, 2006

This is the outcome that I think a majority of the college would subscribe to as well. They failed to follow the handbook in dealing with the plaintiff. It was a bad situation for the defendants.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Could I BESEECH you gentlemen to let this thread return to its original topic, and start a new thread if you want to continue a COB discussion?

What would have happened if Dr. Glamser had tossed the packet? Would AD, MD, and JH still be on hand? Would this board exist? The board has had tremendous impact on the USM community, not least in forming friendships that would never have existed otherwise, and in allowing a place for thoughtful people to consider issues of importance to USM, to the community, and to the ideals of higher education.

It's also been home to a few idots, but that's a topic for another day.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

LVN,

I understand your frustration with posts changing the thread of the original post. However, it is so common on this Board that I think it cannot be changed.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

All of this stuff about the "scourge of the CoB" is typical Doty Toadie behavior.

The Doty Toadies have so many skeletons in their collective closet that they fight like hell to keep anybody from opening the door. They're afraid if anybody ever exposed some of their dirty dealings, they'd be run out of their boondoggle on a rail. Deals for promotion, deals for tenure, tenure denials, denied promotions, extravagant raises to friends, denials of raises to enemies, favorable teaching loads, threats of firing, the list goes on and on.

They hide behind words liek "confidentiality", "personal", "professional", etc., as if those words make it O.K. to do things for or to one person that won't be done for or to another person in the same situation. The reason: most are career administrators who got tenure and promotion by following the hidden third route (not teaching and research): administration. In fact, they're grooming another young faculty member as we speak -- a little administrative job here, a little administrative job there...pretty soon, that guy will have "administrated" his way to tenure.

How did all those skeletons get in that closet, anyway? The skeletons came from years of Toadies selling themselves to whatever entity could provide benefits. The sad thing is they were Toadies of previous deans as well...they'll sell out to whatever administrator can throw a few coins in their cup...when Doty is gone, they'll sell out to the next dean, whomever that may be.

When someone gets close to exposing some of their dirty deeds on this board, the group attacks, calling names and attempting to discredit posters. Doty Toadies to the rescue!

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am starting a new thread re G & S. COB friends, this one is all yours.

COBster in residence, . . . never mind.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Same ol', same ol' wrote:

Actually, most of us are just sick of you and the underhanded techniques you have of attacking the people you work with.

Try addressing some of your concern on the plaintiff instead of those who targeted him. Then you'll really have something to cry about.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Same ol', same ol' wrote:

Actually, most of us are just sick of you ;

That about sums it up for me.

Date: Jun 26, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Carter was also not the chair any longer after the case was settled." Not true. Dr. Carter continued as chair until the end of the fiscal year. The rumor that the settlement forced him to step down is not true as should be apparent now that he is once again chair. Both George Carter and Tyrone Black stepped down within a month of the settlement of the case in question. There exit was part of the settlement. The University asked for negotiations after Kim Chaze's opening statements. In essence, the University caved as soon as the case went to trial. We do not know all of the details because none of the players has violated the conditions of the settlement, which they should not. Suffice it to say that these administrators were quite stunned to find that the Administration had sold them out so quickly. The moral of the story is, it is hard to know who can depend on in the world of USM. To quote that famous philosopher Coach Pat Dye, "sometimes you think you know, but then you know, you don't know."

(My apologies to the moderator for one more post that is off the original topic, but I believe I deserve some indulgence in this case.)

Cossack,

You are correct that I have not and cannot discuss the settlement you refer to, but I can set the record straight about my resignation. I was NOT required to relinquish the dean's position; I stepped down solely of my own accord because after 21 years of administrative work, twelve as dean, I doubted that I had enough enthusiasm left to lead the college in the direction it needed to go. We had just completed a successful AACSB accreditation, and it was time to put the college in the hands of someone with new ideas.

Neither Aubrey Lucas nor David Huffman ever asked for or intimated that they wanted my resignation. Both Lucas and Huffman were consistently supportive of me and the college during my administration, and I consider it a priviledge to have worked with both of them.

Finally, for what its worth, I believe the general welfare would be better served if all university settlements were open to public scrutiny.

Ty Black

Date: Jun 26, 2006

I say a big AMEN to that, Ty.