new stuff up at USMPRIDE.COM - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 21, 2006

new stuff up at USMPRIDE.COM

Date: Jul 21, 2006

What we're seeing from Davis is what we can expect to see more of. Those in the college who step up and protect the long-time faculty's shenanigans will be rewarded in some way at a later date. As I said before, it would have been nice if some of the "PERS slaves" would take their winnings and walk away from the table. That is not to be. Usmpride will have to go on, then, before we can expect changes. Things will get much worse, too, before getting any better.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

What do you know about the things posted today?

Date: Jul 21, 2006

A quasi-administrator has admitted that flawed information and a flawed process were used in the 2006 merit raise process

I have no knowledge of the process for merit raises in 2006 other than what every faculty member knows. Processes can be found in the faculty handbook.

Marc, please remove from the USMPRIDE the statement that I was present during the evaluation process. This is not true.

Also, correct the statement that I agreed with Tom Lindley's comments in the faculty meeting about the evaluation process. George Carter had introduced an amendment to the faculty handbook clarifying the distinction among expectations for assistants and those further along in their careers. Tom indicated he would not vote on that as the whole process was flawed. I indicated that was another consideration, and that I supported George's amendment. Please report accurately or not at all.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Donna Davis wrote:

I have no knowledge of the process for merit raises in 2006 other than what every faculty member knows. Processes can be found in the faculty handbook.

A few days ago, you posted specific information about how SEDONA was used -- what years were taken from SEDONA and what years were not. Until that moment, I would wager that 90% or more of CoB faculty had no idea that information other than SEDONA was used. So, it seems you do possess information regarding the raise process that not every CoB faculty knows.

Also, I challenge anyone to present the section of the CoB handbook (Enhancing Faculty Productivity) that deals with SEDONA in any way. The handbook process describes and presents a method which was totally subverted in 2006.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Donna Davis wrote:

Marc, please remove from the USMPRIDE the statement that I was present during the evaluation process. This is not true.

Since the only source of verification is another administrator, your word will have to suffice.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

Donna Davis wrote:

Also, correct the statement that I agreed with Tom Lindley's comments in the faculty meeting about the evaluation process. George Carter had introduced an amendment to the faculty handbook clarifying the distinction among expectations for assistants and those further along in their careers. Tom indicated he would not vote on that as the whole process was flawed. I indicated that was another consideration, and that I supported George's amendment. Please report accurately or not at all.

While this is what you may have intended to do, your support definitely appeared to be for Lindley's statements. I can tell you that I was shocked when you appeared to go against any administrator, even when it means killing your own program.

Depree has stated that documents will be corrected as information is presented. I'm sure he'll get the authors to fix these issues or note your objections.

Date: Jul 21, 2006

After Tom Lindley's comments, Donna said "I agree with much of what Tom said, however . . ." That seems to fit the description DePree posted on the site. I think the first thing Davis mentioned was labelled a rumor on the site, not a "statement."