I agree that this board is dead but I disagree about the cause.  You, Cossack, are a major cause of its death.  You have condoned, and indeed supported, the systematic character assasination of good people by DePree.  You have participated both behind the scenes and in direct deliberate manipulation of website content.  The website community is not tuned out to problems in the Business College but rather turned off to the constant nastiness and personal attacks made by a few of its members.  Your lack of personal responsibility, obvious transference of motives and methods, and inability to suggest positive alternatives to your own colleagues (let alone your colleagues across campus) have hurt your credibility.  Many of us who choose not to use our own names are no longer afraid of the lame duck bullies in the dome.  Instead, we are unwilling to fall victim to the hypocritical bullies in the COB.

In all its meanings, I am indeed a "One Time Poster".

I can't believe how our united front has derailed. Say what you want about Depree but he has been a major help in exposing the corruption that infiltrates USM. If people don't want to read about it - then don't read about it.  I can't imagine why people have become so ugly about one another. I guess you know that you are making SFT and his cronies very happy. You are playing into his tainted polymer hands.

Corruption exists at every level and in every College. You only let the COB "hijack" this Board by allowing yourselves to be irritated about the multiple posts. If you don't like them, don't read them.

Start your own topics.

What has always bothered me about the COB threads is their internecine nature. While people in all colleges and most departments have enemies and grudges, the COB seems to have a degree of internal animosity unknown in other colleges. The constant bitterness and "got you last" posts are tiresome at best. This board was set up to expose and resist administration malfeasance. Bashing a dean or college administrator fits that goal. Bashing your colleagues over and over begins to look petty and reminds me of pre school age sibling rivalry. The repeated public promotion of personal vendettas is not befitting of mature, educated professionals.

There are many good folks in the COB who have much knowledge and experience to share with us. I look forward to their participation in the future.

The board is not dead. It's just a bit slow right now. As more people register and issues arise (e.g., WebCT fees) there will be useful information and discussion. The search for the new president and decisions about future directions will provide ample grist for the mill.

Curmudgeon,

I guess COB folks are not civilized compared to folks in other colleges. I remember thinking how understanding the folks in Psychology and Education were of the corruption there when SFT orchestrated the raises and promotion of his daughter. As I recall, I remember everyone saying, "Well he is President and he can do whatever he wants" "We certainly do not want this to get ugly or disturb faculty in other areas".

Cossack wrote:

---

Curmudgeon,

I guess COB folks are not civilized compared to folks in other colleges. I remember thinking how understanding the folks in Psychology and Education were of the corruption there when SFT orchestrated the raises and promotion of his daughter. As I recall, I remember everyone saying, "Well he is President and he can do whatever he wants" "We certainly do not want this to get ugly or disturb faculty in other areas".

---

Getting ugly with the administration is not a problem. My post dealt with the faculty on faculty conflict in COB. The psychology department seems to get on quite well with eachother. Some would argue that they have gotten on too well with the administration in the past.

Historical perspective from last summer:

Debate Coach
Date: Jul 31, 2005
Views: 292

"Discussion" on this Message Board

For all of the hubbub made about using logic, facts, and rational discussion on this message board, I frankly don't see much of it. I have read a number of posts recently that attacked this poster or that poster for not using factual information or logical deduction (or induction) when they were making their point(s).

It's pretty easy to say that sort of thing when you're able to make the rules and have a gang to back you up. I'd be willing to bet that none of you would last in a real debate contest where you have to argue a point of view that may not be aligned with your personal beliefs. That's true debate.

What you're doing here is a farce of such a high quality I've not seen in 20+ years of coaching debate at the university level. I'm glad one of my former students (who now teaches at USM) turned me on to this website; it's great when I need a good laugh.

---

Inspector Clousseau
Date: Jun 30, 2005
Views: 477

Message Board MIA's

This board is dead. Where are our stars? Nothing in days from Invictus, Truth, Seeker, LVN, Austin Eagle, RAM, Curmudgeon, Mlle. Whatchamacallit, W.J. Johnson, Stinky Cheese Man, Angeline, USM Sympathizer, Emma, and so on. Are they all on a retreat somewhere? Having a party and forgot to tell the rest of us? Kidnapped en mass by agents of the Evil Empire? On strike? What's up?

---

Conclusion: it's summer. The board will pick up again soon. New Next Stupid Things are always in the wings.

Invictus wrote:

---

If the board is dead, Cossack, how come you're posting here? And for that matter, how come I am able to read what you did post?

I agree somewhat with Curmudgeon about the CoB threads seeming to be pretty "internecine." I have long wondered why Dr. DePree wasn't more proactive & didn't set up a board to focus solely on CoB issues. When it all comes down to dust, I hope Dr. Thames amply rewards his friends in the CoB , Mark DePree included, for their persistent efforts to disrupt this forum.

---

Invictus,

While most of your posts are well informed, this one is not. By taking sides in an argument that you have little firsthand knowledge of, you are helping to create undue pressure on DePree and the so-called CoBMob to back off the exposing of corruption in the CoB.

In the late 1980's and early 1990's former dean Ty Black began recruiting highly research active faculty to the business school. These faculty were recruited for the specific purpose of raising the business school's research culture and reputation. Black began to reward quality research productivity.

In some way that is not fully known to me, Black became "captured" by some faculty who had been at USM for many years and who were, shall we say, less research active in a quality manner. These individuals were not receiving benefits based on their "seniority" because Black was making an attempt to reward quality research. As I said, however, Black became "captured" by these faculty members (I will not spread rumors as to how he was captured). He turned on those he had hired to increase the business school's research culture, taking away professorships that were part of those faculty members' promised compensation packages and giving that money to the Good Old Boys. Several of those who had been lauded were now loathed by Black and the contingent that pulled the strings in the business school. Several left USM.

From that point on, power has firmly rested with the Good Old Boy group in the business school. Rewards are based on friendship, seniority, and favors given and received, not on merit. In fact, the tangled web that connects these individuals spans marriages, divorces, business transactions, lawsuits, broken promises, and coverups. Each document at usmpride.com is a piece of a large jigsaw puzzle that, when completed, will paint a true picture of life in the business school. "Merit" raises are and have been based on something other than excellence in teaching, research, and service, as many of the documents show.

There are three groups in the CoB today -- those who are Good Old Boys, those who are exposing the Good Old Boys, and those caught in the middle. Those who are exposing the Good Old Boys (who have been labeled the CoBMob) present information taken from official USM documents (like the Budget), from Good Old Boy emails sent with the impunity that so often accompanies their communications, and from other public records, such as Doty's interview at USF. Those who belong to the Good Old Boy group log onto this message board and start calling names because THEY DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT WHAT'S BEING POSTED AT USMPRIDE.COM. All they can do is try to derail valuable conversation and impugn the characters of those who are digging for proof of the truth.

Last, those CoB faculty who are caught in the middle are a part of the problem as well. While they may or may not get benefits cast off from the Good Old Boys, they sit inactive because they've seen what the Good Old Boys do to dissenters. In the 1990's alone, the Good Old Boys attempted to fire at least two dissenters, both of whom deserved tenure and promotion. Lawsuits ensued and USM decided that settling with these individuals was better than having corruption exposed in a courtroom -- all it took was an opening argument. All plaintiffs got what they wanted in those cases. Now Doty is playing ball with the Good Old Boys and punishing the dissenters anew.

This board used to (and it may still) have a post by Amy Young titled "Free Speech for a Free Society." This post was stickied to the top of the board to remind all posters about the value and necessity of freedom of speech in academia, which was one of the lynchpins in the Glamser and Stringer affair. When Cossack says "the board is dead," he is correct. This board used to stand for free speech, and now, it seems, there is a movement to have free speech on topics the group likes. Discussion on the board may continue for years, but if posts about the CoB or by CoB posters -- no matter how frequent, infrequent, pervasive, or absent -- are banned, then this board will be dead.

Free speech is a difficult concept. I am constantly reminded of the Michael Douglas speech in "The American President":

... "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

If Dr. DePree and CoB posters are censured by the owner/operator/web master/moderator/posters of this board, then this board doesn't really stand for free speech. There's an analogy that many around here use regarding this board: it's the owner's house, and he/she can ask anyone to leave at any time. Well, the owner has a big sign out front that says "Come on in and discuss things related to USM. Freedom of speech is practiced here." If censure is allowed, then the sign needs to be changed, because "Free Speech for a Free Society" doesn't jive with censuring a USM community member or members who are exposing corruption at any level related to USM, whether it's the Legislature, the IHL, the Commissioner, other Universities in the state, USM as a whole, or any part of USM, including Physical Plant, paving, central administration, or college administration.

Invictus wrote:

---

OK. I see your point. The moderator needs to change the board to "USM COLLEGE OF BIDNESS BITCHFEST."

Now, excuse me while I go shoot somebody's dog.

---

When the FireShelby and AAUP boards were at their height, I'm sure Shelby would have liked to label them "Disgruntled Employee Bitchfest". Is that what was going on?

Unless your stated persona is all a lie, you're out of your depth and unwilling to educate yourself. Maybe now I see your point. You like USM the way it is, just as long as Shelby's gone. All the problems that don't directly affect you are inconsequential.

Your final statement is childish and unbecoming. Just like the Good Old Boys, you have resorted to name-calling when faced with facts.

Curmudgeon wrote:

---

COBster,

Assuming that all you say is true, please refresh my memory as to how the internal politics and squabbles of a college are of interest to the broad university community? I clearly see that information about the USM Foundation is of wide interest. What I fail to see is the value of knowing who is sucking up to whom in a given college or who is getting abused.

---

Three precedents:

Pood's failure to support Gamser and Stringer was an internal issue for the CoAL. Their terminations affected the University, but who supported them or failed to support them within the CoAL was CoAL-specific, yet it was widely discussed here.

Pierce's failing to support the Psych faculty in their challenge of Shelby this past year. This was internal (it didn't affect CoST, CoAL, CoB, or CoH directly), yet it was widely discussed here.

Psych's complaints against Dana Thames. These are internal squabbles for CoEP. They were widely discussed here.

Now, some questions:
Are you willing to have corruption exist in another part of the university, so long as it doesn't directly affect you? What does your answer say about your committment to true academic freedom and a just university community? If you are willing to abide corruption in another college, just how long do you think it will take before it seeps into yours?

I think both COBster and Curmudgeon are speaking past the real issue.  COBster gave a nice history of the troubles in the CoB and the issues exposed by Dr. DePree.  However, the information supplied by Dr. DePree was never the problem on this board, in my opinion.  It was the methods he and others used to keep the USMPride site at the top of this board in order to get people's attention.  At times there were 6 or more threads on CoB on page one so there would always be a thread available to kick to the top for attention only.  In addition other threads were "hijacked" by CoB posters. 

I think the work of Dr. DePree is valuable.  The methods used to disseminate the information about USMPride through this board were excessive.  I see no problem with one thread about USMPride. 

CoBster in Residence wrote:

---

Curmudgeon wrote:

---

Three precedents:

---

Then I assume that the problems in CoB are attributable to the university administration. Is that correct? If so, please elaborate, because almost everything posted by the CobMob to this point suggests to me that the problems in CoB are attributable to the personnel (administration & faculty) in that college.

Certainly, if the problems in CoB are attributable to the university administration -- which is the case for what happened in CoAL & CoEP, as you correctly indicate -- they are probably of interest to the broader community. But if the problems in CoB are the product of a dysfunctional department/college, well, sorry, but that sounds like a personal problem.

Curmudgeon wrote:

---

CoBster in Residence wrote:

---

Curmudgeon wrote:

---

COBster,

---

Three precedents:

Pood's failure to support Gamser and Stringer was an internal issue for the CoAL. Their terminations affected the University, but who supported them or failed to support them within the CoAL was CoAL-specific, yet it was widely discussed here.

Pierce's failing to support the Psych faculty in their challenge of Shelby this past year. This was internal (it didn't affect CoST, CoAL, CoB, or CoH directly), yet it was widely discussed here.

Psych's complaints against Dana Thames. These are internal squabbles for CoEP. They were widely discussed here.

Now, some questions:
Are you willing to have corruption exist in another part of the university, so long as it doesn't directly affect you? What does your answer say about your committment to true academic freedom and a just university community? If you are willing to abide corruption in another college, just how long do you think it will take before it seeps into yours?

---

You've made my point. Pood and Pierce are part of the administration. Dana Thames is the daughter of the president. Your examples are all of interest to the broad university community.

If an individual chair is violating the academic freedom of a faculty member, we want to hear about it. The issue is academic freedom, not the personality of the chair. If nepotism and cronyism rule the day in a college, we want to hear about it. What galls many of us is the incessant whining about who got a raise because they suck up or who is ratting out their colleagues. It's the repetition that is wearing folks out. In the COAL the dean is generally held in low regard by the faculty. He would fail a vote of confidence miserably. Everybody knows that. And yet you don't see post after post about that dean's shortcomings. It's not news.

---

Doty is part of the administration. What he does is as much of interest to the broad university community as what Pierce, Pood, or Thames does. The documents at usmpride don't outline the "personality of a chair" or of a dean. They outline a pattern of disregard for the USM Faculty handbook and the CoB Handbook by Doty and his administrative team. They outline malfeasance on the part of CoB administrators, which is very different than a personal vendetta.

If you're concerned with cronyism but don't care about "who got a raise", then you don't understand cronyism at all.

CommonTator wrote:

---

Curmudgen, it's a lost cause, son. People that're right, well, their right and that's that and you arent gonna change their mind. Aint none of these cobb fellows ever been wrong, even oncet.

---

Newly Registered Poster + Defense of Good Old Boys = Sock Puppet Game?

But since sock puppets are always with us, it is nice to have one named Tator. Tator was the alias of Ron White, the comedian. It always got a laugh for old Ron.