Hm, are you a graduate student or an undergraduate student?

No difference, just wondering. In fact, I'm just wondering if this is really a student.

Oh, great another CoB thread.  Since they took over the "Board Issues" thread, this makes about the 6th CoB thread just on page one.

If I understand the original post correctly, one of the following must be true:

1. The SEDONA creator shared the password with non-administrative faculty during the training sessions in late January.

2. An administrator or former administrator who is "authorized" to have the passwords is creating these files on DePree's website.

3. An administrator or former administrator who is "authorized" to have the passwords gave the password to a non-administrative faculty member who is creating these files on DePree's website.

4. An administrator or former administrator who is "authorized" to have the passwords gave the password to a graduate student who either gave the passwords out or is creating these files on DePree's website.

5. An administrator or former administrator who is "authorized" to have the passwords gave the password to a staff member who either gave the passwords out or is creating these files on DePree's website.

6. The SEDONA database has been hacked by someone who is creating these files on DePree's website.

Does anyone know for sure which is the correct scenario?

Cossack wrote:

---

COB is full of double standards. One for the rent seekers, a different one for the productive faculty, and another for the precious administrators. That adds up to triple standards. Some folks get a small amount to travel to meetings; others get an open end account to travel all over the world. Some special faculty miss one to two weeks of class before returning for the Fall semester while their Chair covers for them. After several years, you get used to it. Actually, I am too narrowly focused; USM is full of double standards. I am still amazed by a post that indicated that research productivity and raises were not related in COAL (paraphrasing). No one challenged it, so it must be the case. It is amazing that COAl has had, and still has, a productive faculty. Dr. Angela Ball's recent award is proof of a superior level of scholarship.

---

This has me perplexed as well, Cossack. I recall the post you reference. The reaction to CoB posts tells me that those in CoAL, CoST, CoH, and CoEP are either happy with the way things are or they are too comfortable to challenge the administrative abuses in their own colleges publicly.

The information on SEDONA is NOT confidential in a strict sense. Each faculty member can check a box that allows anyone who is a COB faculty member to view their record. It then can be sent to anyone anytime anywhere (A little USM sports lingo). The records that could be considered confidential are those of faculty who either wish to hide their record, or have not gotten around to clicking the box. (Many faculty may not even know there is a box to click.) Thus, there is no university policy that All SEDONA records are confidential. One can debate why or why not a faculty member is justified in keeping their academic vita private in a publicly funded university. Since the official record at USM is that faculty are expected to produce three different products, research, teaching, and service, it would seem reasonable that the process not be secret. Obviously, some think that their vita should not be shared with other faculty. It could be that these wishing secrecy are just modest and do not want to “toot their own horn”. However, since the official reward structure rests on producing these three products, logic dictates that secrecy is desired because it benefits those who cannot, or are too lazy, to compete. The shrillness of their posts condemning the inclusion of their success (or lack of) would seem to eliminate modesty as the motivating force.

While I am not a political scientist by training, I do not think many would support the concept that public funds should be secretly allocated, except in very rare occasions such as national security. Even in the national security cases, we see a clamor for more information rather than less. No better case exists than the current situation with the New York Times revealing public funds (activities) being spent without oversight. There are two sides to this New York Times issue which is a topic for other posts. I am using the example as a contrast. If national security is not sufficient justification for not revealing expenditures and/or activities, how can a faculty member claim that the product(s) they have produced in their state funded job be confidential from other faculty or the public?

The USM method and motto always has been, and remains, "who is doing it, not what is being done." Certain "whos" can do almost anything", while other "whos" carry the load and are forced to follow every rule to the letter. Every college, if not every department or school, has one or more of these fair-haired faculty "whos".

Every area also has administrators that do his/her job the best s/he can, while others arrive promptly at 10:30, are long gone by 4:30, have a nice long lunch, take many days off (especially in the summer) and never take annual leave time for it. Some call that a privilege, some call it an entitlement, some call it being a bad administrator, and some call it stealing, which it is. The system has no incentive to catch those stealing their checks, and the system has no real internal auditor. To the contrary: the system seems set up to encourage people to do all they get away with, unless it interfers with another person's area of corruption.

"All in all, it's just another brick in the wall."

S

Cossack wrote:

---

"All in all, it's just another brick in the wall."

That about sums it up. I may start drinking early today.

---

I wish I could join you in a cool spot with a cool drink somewhere, Cossack. Remember: it is always 5:00 somewhere.

S