quote:

---

Originally posted by: Salesperson
"What if, instead of a no-confidence vote in a staff person, the FS developed a job description and/or list of objectives that the PR spokesperson should meet on behalf of the faculty?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: WR Joey Jones
"Robert, I have been (for some time) symphathetic to your suggestion that a no confidence vote be taken re Lisa Mader.  From reading the responses to your idea after you present it each time, it seems to be a nonstarter.  What would you think about the facsen writing an op-ed type piece explaining what a true university spokesperson does and contrast that to how Lisa Mader has been acting since 2002?  The piece could explain that she is more like a President's Press Secretary (in the federal executive sense) than a university spokesperson.  The letter could conclude by pointing out that she has done as much to poison the atmosphere at USM as anyone else has since arriving there."

---

WR Joey Jones,

I think this would be a great idea!

One of the most powerful weapons that upper administrators have is the willingness of the local media to print their press releases.  Well after SFT alienated the editorial board of the Hat Am, the paper continues to run articles full of false statements about the university, because of its reporters' inability or unwillingness to question what Thames' PR machine tells them.  As numerous discussions on this board have shown, the financial numbers in every Hat Am article about USM appear to be fried, yet the newspaper continues to run them.

But Lisa Mader has gone well beyond the distorted numbers and self-serving presentation (which are common in her line of work) into raw partisanship (as in her remark that essentially correct charges against Angie Dvorak "make me sick") and silence about anti-faculty letters to the editor that many believe have been orchestrated.

An op ed explaining what a genuine university spokesperson would do--and contrasting it with Lisa Mader's track record of providing unreliable information and doing nothing to counter public attacks on the faculty--could have a significant impact.

Robert Campbell

Have any of you brought this up with the new president of the faculty senate in order to discuss this with ST? Perhaps you cannot because you are not faculty?

I am not encouraging you to peruse this matter though. I find it odd that you want to start focusing on some letters that criticized the faculty when there have been no letters in the papers for over a month now. If Parker had not written his letter, it would be almost two months. You want to bring the issue up again for why? This makes no sense to me because the public will just start criticizing the faculty again. As has been stated time and time again on this board, it is not that the public does not understand about the faculty and how the faculty think the university should be run.....it is that the public just does not care. None of you realize, or just do not want to accept, how little value your problem has to the general public.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Miles Short
"... I saw somewhere else on this board where some dufus said somebody was "orchestrating" people to write letters against the faculty. It is amazing those letters all of a sudden stopped huh? ..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Curmudgeon
"

It sounds like the frat boys got back to town early. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Otherside
" I wonder if sickle&hammer ever posted to this board under another name? Hmmmm, who could it be? .......like Seeker, little seeker, Online Prof, Miles Short, etc, etc, who didn't have a clue of how universities function. People (didn’t he called them flat earthers?) that didn't understand shared governance and that SFT was being unprofessional, even though he was CEO. "

---

Why do you persist in trying to link me to other people…people who I have never met or spoken with on this board. Are you so insular that you cannot get past your own biases to accept that more than one person might have a similar opinion. Just because that opinion differs from yours does not mean it is posted by the same person. Think about it: there are about 10-12 posters here focusing on letter writing and attacking ST. They all have the same opinion, so does that mean they are all the same person. The webmaster logs IP’s on this board, and I am willing to bet the people you talk about have different IP’s.

I have never said anything that supported ST and his administration. Now what many of you have done is to move the attack away from ST toward other members of the USM community, including students, thereby embarrassing all of USM. That is all I have focused on and talked about. Just because I do not agree with you, does not mean I have any love for ST and his administration.

I have now talked to 6 other professors about the letter writing. I know this is hearsay, but they agree that the public was acting on its own and that starting another letter campaign will just stir the public up again, thereby causing the faculty to feel it has to respond yet again. The real reason you want to start this cycle is because you are trying to embarrass the administration. You do not care who you take down with you, just as long as you take down ST. With your actions, you are just losing more followers. I think deep down you know that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Online Prof
"You know very little about how an opinions section of a newspaper is run.

---

Online Prof,

I know a little bit about a lot of things, but I do know enough about you

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Online Prof
"By the way. What are you planning to do to the few current faculty and students who wrote letters to the CL, HA, and SH criticizing the other faculty for the way they were behaving? Are you going to push to have them fired or suspended from school?"

---

Offbase Prof,

Just what would you do with them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Otherside
" Online Prof, this is America. Everyone has the right to write letters . . .  I haven't yet heard many valid criticisms of faculty, even from you. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Just Plain Jane
"
Offbase Prof"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Otherside
"  You don't seem to realize that we are not against letters expressing *valid* criticism of the faculty. We will rebut letters expressing *ignorant* criticism. That is, criticism by people who do not understanding the *duty* of faculty to uphold shared governance and point out unprofessional conduct on the part of the president. I haven't yet heard many valid criticisms of faculty, even from you. "

---

the reason you dont see 'valid' criticism is because you choose to see what you want to see. you dont know what the duty of faculty is, and the faculty should not be deciding for themselves what their duty is or should not be. and even if you did know, that duty can be changed by the administration, just like any administration of any organization should be able to do.

valid criticism? ok. stringer allowed people to pretend he was a chair of the dept. doing an employment background check on a person soon to be employed in the dept., even though that person never applied for a job in that dept. stringer used that person's ss# without her permission. he sought out that ss#. All of that is illegal, so he definitely should have been fired. if he wasnt that would have set a bad example for the students. it is bad enough a few faculty on this campus are setting the example to students that it is ok to attack the leadership, but noway should the faculty be allowed to set the example that it is ok to break federal law and get away with it.

several faculty offered their students extra credit to attend some kind of rally against thames. that was surely unethical. several faculty encouraged their students to write letters to the local newspapers and the college board. no professor should use their student as a tool to tout their own agenda.

then you have some former faculty who keep urging on their former students, especially in the eng. dept, to "keep up the good fight" and of course you got people like n.polk and that religion professor who keep running off at the mouth bringing shame to usm and not just the president. then you got a faculty member acting like an immature 18 yr old smashing his "no excellence in teaching award" on camera (berry?). then you got some old-time but childish professor (parker?) writing a letter to hattieburg american calling the public the "know nothing party" and "the flat earth society," all of which makes it sound as though he is teaching at an elementary school and is back on the playground fighting with other 8 year olds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: this side
"
the reason you dont see 'valid' criticism is because you choose to see what you want to see. you dont know what the duty of faculty is, and the faculty should not be deciding for themselves what their duty is or should not be. and even if you did know, that duty can be changed by the administration, just like any administration of any organization should be able to do.
"

---