C:. 11/7/06: College Board can keep secrecy in chief searches but must build credibility - USM Forum -- Message Board

info · Status: Offline

C:. 11/7/06: College Board can keep secrecy in chief searches but must build credibility

Reporter · Status: Offline

I'm moving this thread up where it belongs.

Southern Belle · Status: Offline

If the university's faculty, staff, and student input is not going to be considered by the IHL Board, they should notify the university campus that comments will not be solicited from these groups. As someone who participated and provided comments and results from staff during the last process, I and other staff members wasted valuable time complying information that was basically thrown away.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Southern Belle wrote:

If the university's faculty, staff, and student input is not going to be considered by the IHL Board, they should notify the university campus that comments will not be solicited from these groups. As someone who participated and provided comments and results from staff during the last process, I and other staff members wasted valuable time complying information that was basically thrown away.

The irony here is that the supposedly "open" search wasn't open at all -- it allowed powerful people and some unscrupulous board members to have undue influence and produced a poor result. Incidently, I have noted to others that the USM search produced perhaps for the first time in the history of Mississippi searches a President who had large opposition before he even took office --- and yet the Board foisted him on us anyway.

The Board however, has changed radically in personnel, and in its governance structure. One of the prime agents of change was Virginia Shanteau Newton. I think it is clear that Roy Klum was either forced out or opted out after he lost both standing and the battle to keep Thames for another four years. A number of new Board members seem to have a stronger sense of integrity and a greater sense of discretion in terms of interferring with individual university policy making.

The new commissioner has adopted a process that makes some of us uncomfortable and we have expressed our reasons for this. He in turn, has expressed his reasons for the process he has adopted -- and those reasons have validity even though his strategy clashes with our desire for "openess." He has staked his own integrity as a commissioner on the process, and within the context of his process has exhibited adaptability and flexibility. The USM process for selecting the faculty pool was modified significantly over both MSU and Alcorn -- and that modification was one suggested jointly at the urging of the faculty senate and the agreement of the deans. The AAUP has been included as a constituent in full standing with the other faculty governance councils in the listening process.

Considering the failure of our "open" process four years ago (and the different failure of the MSU process in which Dr. Lee eventually was a compromise result and in which powerful alums essentially tore the "open" process apart), and considering that in its dealings with faculty at USM Dr. Meredith has been respectful, forthright, willing to listen and responsive, I am strongly inclined to support this search process and encourage others out there to so so as well. Maintain a watchful skepticism -- but I would give that same advice if the process was "open" as well.

I believe that we now have more reason to work with the board and the commissioner and to develop a positive relationship than we ever had in the past. Contacts between commissioner and faculty have been frequent and direct, and there have been more direct contacts between faculty and members of the Board than ever. I believe (call me naive) that this Board wants to do the right thing and correct the terrible decisions of the recent past.

I don't think I am being completely Pollyannish about this -- and my hope would be that at some point in the future, when influence of powerful alumns and community groups who clearly have an unfair ability to influence Presidental selection processes beyond the influence of faculty, staff or students is broken, we may be able to return to a process that is genuinely open throughout. Given the current climate university presidents clearly face in seeking jobs, I am not optimistic however.

Just one man's opinion.

-- Edited by stephen judd at 10:53, 2006-11-07

Invictus · Status: Offline

I completely respect Prof. Judd's opinion on this, but I respectfully disagree.

The fact that the last "open" search was corrupted does not in itself impugn open searches in general. And should not be an excuse for accepting what would, in a more enlightened political environment, be regarded as an illegal search.

I do agree that the board seems more USM-friendly now. And why shouldn't it be? The "Shelby Project" was a success:

USM successfully dropped from any serious competition with MSU & UM
Experienced & nationally-respected faculty successfully replaced with less experienced (hence, cheaper) faculty
USM successfully made 3rd largest university in the state
USM successfully positioned to become a member of the JSU-DSU-ASU-MVSU-MUW gruppo
USM's reputation successfully tarnished via idiotic attempt to fire tenured professors & SACS probation

There is no reason for IHL to be "hostile" to USM any more. Mission accomplished!

-- Edited by Invictus at 20:56, 2006-11-10

-- Edited by Invictus at 21:16, 2006-11-10

LVN · Status: Offline

Wow, Vict, that's depressing as all heck.

Invictus · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

Wow, Vict, that's depressing as all heck.

Are any of my bullet points untrue?

oldtimer · Status: Offline

Invictus wrote:

LVN wrote:

Wow, Vict, that's depressing as all heck.

Are any of my bullet points untrue?

Invicfus, from my perspective, you're absolutely "on target" with everything you posted. The "paranoid worst-case scenario" of the last presidential search turned out to be merely a case of the Cassandra syndrome. It's true that the IHL Board can appear to be more "USM-friendly" in 2006, because their "double-secret probation" actions of 2001-2002 accomplished their intended consequences.

Sigh!

LVN · Status: Offline

Invictus wrote:

LVN wrote:

Wow, Vict, that's depressing as all heck.

Are any of my bullet points untrue?

No sugar, that's why it's depressing as all heck.

Jameela Lares · Status: Offline

The bullet points are correctly stated, but they don't prove causality. The cardinal difficulty with conspiracy theories is that they depend on reasoning post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), which is a logical fallacy. As we've been reminded before, Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity (Hanlon's Razor).

An alternative scenario is that the powers that be were presented with exaggerated but attractive claims about how SFT could save them money. (It's a very powerful argument to say to a cash-strapped system, "It's not your fault and you don't have to do anything; just put me in charge and I'll fix it.") As anyone could have done, the powers that be were overly credulous, put our current administration in power, and then were too embarrassed by the result to want to fix the situation immediately and thus admit it was a mistake.

In any case, I'm not terribly keen on attributing to the bad, the evil, the malicious, and the short-sighted among us and above us more power than they actually have. It's literally against my religion.

Jameela

Invictus · Status: Offline

Jameela Lares wrote:

In any case, I'm not terribly keen on attributing to the bad, the evil, the malicious, and the short-sighted among us and above us more power than they actually have. It's literally against my religion.

Nice straw man strategem, Jameela!

I didn't cite those bullet points to support the "conspiracy theory," but rather to demonstrate that there is no longer any reason for board members to be "anti-USM." Those of us who go back a ways -- and I assure you that there are very, very few remaining employees at USM who go back as far as I do -- know for a stone fact that keeping USM in a subordinate position has been an open objective of the board since the day that they burned the MSC hedges outside the dome.

Just bear in mind that the new commish has an agenda & giving USM employees the illusion of input will advance that agenda. "Listening" & "acting upon what one hears" are two very different animules.

All that said, there are some very exciting things happening vis-a-vis USM in my corner of the universe. I rather doubt that most of the folks who read this board would agree with me, which is tough.

Godless Liberal · Status: Offline

Vic said:

All that said, there are some very exciting things happening vis-a-vis USM in my corner of the universe. I rather doubt that most of the folks who read this board would agree with me, which is tough.

Vic-

If you are happy with new and exciting stuff in your corner of the USMiverse, more power to you. I believe that what goes on behind bedroom doors is your business, and if you don't want to share, that's fine. I have a date with Suzie Creamcheese ("What's got into you!") this weekend, which may not be your cup of tea, but I am pretty excited.

Best wishes,

Mr. GL

Invictus · Status: Offline

Hope Miss Creamcheese lives up to your expectorations