Closed Hearing

Date: Mar 25, 2004

Closed Hearing

Date: Mar 25, 2004

Dear Aghast:

One final point, now is the time for Stringer and Glamser to consider only what's in their own best interests (i.e., closed hearing), not what's in the best interests of the school and the man that summarily fired them and ended their careers (i.e., USM and Shelby Thames).

Date: Mar 25, 2004

Well said....how many of the people calling for an open hearing would want their own personnel matters discussed in public...even if they were minor disciplinary matters as opposed to termination proceedings?!?!

Date: Mar 25, 2004

If I am not mistaken, state law provides for closed hearings when dealing with personnel issues. Even though the advisory board is not a state board, Glamser and Stringer are state employees working for a state university.

Open Meetings Act: look at provision 4(a) of section 25-41-7 here:

http://www.missouri.edu/~foiwww/mississopenmeet.html

Sunshine laws in Mississippi allow for closed personnel meetings.

By calling for an open hearing, Shelby is attempting to shift focus from the issue at hand--that he fired two professors, confiscated their computers, and sent police to bar them from their offices in front of students--and onto what might or might not be on Glamser's and Stringer's computer.

I have to admit it's a clever PR ploy and is working with people who aren't aware of how university protocol and laws in the state function.

Date: Mar 25, 2004

Two points. First, I watched virtually all of the O.J. Simpson trial, as did the 12 jurors. I thought O.J. (and still do) was guilty as sin. The jurors said otherwise. Though not evenly, the country was divided as well. So much, then, for the theory that if the hearings are open and all the information is known, we'll all clearly end up on one side or another. Here's the point. After an open hearing, if the evidence is what I think it is, support will still fall heavily on the side of Glamser and Stringer, yet Lisa Mader, Shelby, the IHL Board, and the Pine Belt business community will remain adamant that Shelby is a god of some sort. Thus, Glamser and Stringer should take care of themselves and have a closed hearing.

Second, because there is little information out about the specifics of the charges against Glamser and Stringer, those who are picking sides at this point are doing so on the basis of what they know of the parties' reputation, character, integrity, etc. (i.e., people are using reputational aspects about character, etc., as a surrogate for information about the case specifics). As a result, many, many, many more people are on the side of the two profs. That speaks volumes.

Date: Mar 25, 2004

This is an unusually intelligent, thoughtful, and informative thread. Many thanks to all who have participated in it.

Date: Mar 25, 2004

There should be "NO" public hearing. How dare that power hungry animal, Thames, even suggest such an obvious evil deed. Why should the two beloved profs risk anything making them look in a bad light.

DOWN WITH THAMES!!!! UP WITH "THE CAUSE"!!!!

Date: Mar 25, 2004

I agree. This is REAL LIFE, not some tv movie, not some staged reality tv show like The Apprentice (could make a good comparison here, but I'll abstain!). If your boss called you into his/her office for something you allegedly did wrong, would you want it web-cast in real time? Would you want it on tv? Especially when you have no idea what your crazy boss is going to say. He could say anything... like you were selling crack cocaine out of your office, and there it is all over the world. Of course you know you didn't do it and will eventually prove that, but tongues are a-wagging all over the globe. These professors have been at USM for decades. They have been FIRED. It is horrible. Given that the hearing is not a court of law, my guess is almost anything is possible. How scary for them. I say try to put yourself in their shoes. I wouldn't want everyone to be privy to my personal life.

( I copied my post from the Liberal Arts thread...)

Date: Mar 25, 2004

I'm willing to bet that "the evil one" has already paid off the people that will be listening in on the hearing! I say the Profs should be re-hired, given a pay raise, and let one of them be the president of USM....

Like they always say....

"If the rabbit runs around the hole then the sun ain't shining!"

Date: Mar 25, 2004

Profs. Stringer and Glamser don't have a million-dollar publicity machine at their disposal. (Remember: they'll be without salaries April 1.) Already Shelby has impugned them in the press. Some of us have seen the charges. They are NOTHING: use of computers and phones; malfeasance (bosh!). Just think, friends: if someone invested a million-dollar law firm and six weeks into investigating you, don't you think they could have come up with something? But Shelby didn't. The truth will out. In the meantime, realize that this man is a tyrant who will lie, cheat, and steal to get his way--and further disgrace us in the world's academy.

Date: Mar 25, 2004

If that is true, the the IHL should be investigated for installing someone like that as a college president!!! What does that say for their selection process!!?? What does it say about them as decision makers??

Date: Mar 27, 2004

As long as the College Board is appointed by the governor, it will continued to be filled with plenty of folks who know nothing about higher education administration. It's seen as a "plum" assignment and a reward for friends of the governor. Push for College Board reform!

Date: Mar 28, 2004

A different take on this........