quote:

---

Originally posted by: doc1246
"I'm not really excluding it I am wondering what else has he done besides that to destroy this university in the views of those who participate on this board? "

---

Have you read through the threads here?

Um, let's see, what else?

-privatizing a public university

-firing 9 respected deans, appointing new ones, and combining disparate colleges into 5 schools.  (History with Interior Design--explain that one to me)

-nepotism (dana thames report, look at it)

-firing other tenured professors, or forcing them to resign, or denying tenure to qualified candidates

-lying to the media

-creating stiffling rules, such as the one that states a faculty computer can be seized by him for any reason.

-through the media, proposing a VA hospital on the coast without consulting with IHL prior to proposing it.

-demolishing the nursing college

-consenting to academic dishonesty by defending Dvorak and her embellished resume'

-silencing students and faculty through intimidation...

Those I came up with in just a minute or two--there are more, and I am sure others here will assist you.

Whiting?

do you mean:

1. The achromatic color of maximum lightness; the color of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths; the complement or antagonist of black, the other extreme of the neutral gray series. Although typically a response to maximum stimulation of the retina, the perception of white appears always to depend on contrast.
   
2. The white or nearly white part, as:


3. The albumen of an egg.
   
4. The white part of an eyeball.
   
5. A blank unprinted area, as of an advertisement.


6. One that is white or nearly white, as:


7. whites White trousers or a white outfit of a special nature: tennis whites.
   
8. whites The white dress uniform of the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard.
   
9. A white wine.
   
10. A white pigment.
    
11. A white breed, species, or variety of animal.
    
12. also White A member of a racial group of people having light skin coloration, especially one of European origin. See Usage Note at black.
    
13. Products of a white color, such as flour, salt, and sugar. Often used in the plural.


14. Games.


15. The white or light-colored pieces, as in chess.
    
16. The player using these pieces.


17. The outermost ring of an archery target.
    
18. A hit in this ring.


19. whites Pathology. Leukorrhea. or
    
20. or do you mean:
    
21. A politically ultraconservative or reactionary person.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Disinterested Third party
"Hey, I was on the faculty at USM in the mid 1980s...you mentioned he demolished to college of nursing...what did he do??"

---

There has not been much written in the media on the nursing program. The college lost its Dean and the College itself (in one fatal sweep without warning January 2003), and staff has been reduced dramatically.

Senior faculty are leaving at an alarming rate, and  the Albertson's 'project' which was earmarked over a year ago for the new school of nursing building, has been "traded" to Forrest General Hospital for another piece of property (no one knows where or what) which will be Nursing's "new building site".

Nursing (nor any of the departments that were cut and spliced) had no input into any of these changes and had to learn it from someone not even associated with the program.  The money made as profit from the sale of the "designated" School of Nursing building (Albertson's) is going to the Trent Lott Center for Economic Excellence (two faculty are now in that "division"). Those in the School of Nursing have had no control over what has happened, and administrators have resigned.

There are no applicants and several faculty openings. ..... The students who in good faith enrolled have teachers who are suffering from faculty overload and stress.  It will probably not be possible to admit any new Ph.D. students and pressures will limit undergraduate and graduate admissions in Hattiesburg.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: doc1246
"Whiting? do you mean: The achromatic color of maximum lightness; the color of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths; the complement or antagonist of black, the other extreme of the neutral gray series. Although typically a response to maximum stimulation of the retina, the perception of white appears always to depend on contrast. The white or nearly white part, as: The albumen of an egg. The white part of an eyeball. A blank unprinted area, as of an advertisement. One that is white or nearly white, as: whites White trousers or a white outfit of a special nature: tennis whites. whites The white dress uniform of the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard. A white wine. A white pigment. A white breed, species, or variety of animal. also White A member of a racial group of people having light skin coloration, especially one of European origin. See Usage Note at black. Products of a white color, such as flour, salt, and sugar. Often used in the plural. Games. The white or light-colored pieces, as in chess. The player using these pieces. The outermost ring of an archery target. A hit in this ring. whites Pathology. Leukorrhea. or or do you mean: A politically ultraconservative or reactionary person."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: aghast
"Read Becky Montague's editorial in the Hattiesburg American for a good summary of the reasons people consider this the "last straw." http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040310/opinion/51468.html"

---

From my website (originally from the Coast Sun Herald)--my comments are in brackets:

*April 2002: Faculty members send letters opposing Thames as president when he is named as one of four finalists. They characterize him as a "micromanager and taskmaster." More than 85 percent of faculty in a vote organized by the American Association of University Professors say Thames would be unacceptable. Thames is chosen to lead university despite the concerns. [Thames was originally on the search committee for the new president.  For reasons speculated on by many here, he abruptly put his name into the hat late in the game and became the College Board's favorite despite no recommendation from the USM committee charged with finding a new prez].

*January 2003: Thames announces that the university's nine colleges will be consolidated into five, meaning the existing deans will lose their positions. The deans must reapply for the fewer positions. The AAUP issues a statement calling the "cavalier treatment of deans reprehensible." [Thames announced this decision to a group of H'burg business leaders before anyone else at USM--deans, faculty members, etc.--heard about it.  He effectively wiped out the College of Nursing and the College of the Arts, one of the jewels in USM's crown for recruiting and accreditation purposes].

*April 2003: Faculty calls for state College Board to mediate an internal flap. Faculty are concerned about a reorganization that will eliminate dean positions as well as a new evaluation system.

*May 2003: The USM administration butts heads with the student-run newspaper, The Student Printz. "I'm real concerned with what we've taught our students in journalism," Thames states.

*June 2003: Thames announces that the restructuring will result in 18 layoffs. Five top USM administration officials either resign or are laid off.

*December 2003: USM admits problems with a student count that showed it had the largest student enrollment of any state university. Susan Siltanen, director of the Office of Institutional Research, resigns due to the student count inconsistencies. [This was called "human error."  There are still questions about what happened here and no one really  has taken the blame--Susan Siltanen was just the "fall girl" for this one.]

*January 2004: The AAUP investigates whether a vice president has inaccurate information on her resume about working at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, when she was actually employed at Ashland Community College.

*March 2004: Faculty questions how decisions over merit raises were decided. The university buys a full-page newspaper advertisement to defend the raises. [Thames' daughter Dana Thames receives largest pay raise of 15%].

Also, about 100 faculty positions remain unfilled and over 150 faculty members (out of 600 total--that's over 1/6) have left, to my knowledge, since Thames came into power.

Enough evidence for you?

as I recall, some male person from the IHL came to campus and interviewed staff/administrators about the enrollment issue.  There were stories in a number of places and if I'm not mistaken a post on the aaup website.  didn't he determine what happened?

i didn't think this was a difficult question.

Here's an article on the enrollment issue.  I'd appreciate it if others would help search for more.  I'd like to be better informed on this as well.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20031205/localnews/769648.html

Hey Do1246:

Please read this post I entered on another string.  It's your answer for why an open hearing --- "getting all the facts in the open so we can all decide what side to come down on" --- is a non-issue or non-starter.

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.

Hey Doc1246:

Shelby also knew the #hit would hit the fan when he gave his daughter Dana a 15% raise, but he did it anyway.  Why, because you and several others would come to his defense and remind the world what an awesome guy he is.

I think as long as people are remotely civil, they should have their say.  What good would it do to have a discussion in which everyone agreed? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm
"From my website (originally from the Coast Sun Herald)--my comments are in brackets: *April 2002: Faculty members send letters opposing Thames as president when he is named as one of four finalists. They characterize him as a "micromanager and taskmaster." More than 85 percent of faculty in a vote organized by the American Association of University Professors say Thames would be unacceptable. Thames is chosen to lead university despite the concerns. [Thames was originally on the search committee for the new president.  For reasons speculated on by many here, he abruptly put his name into the hat late in the game and became the College Board's favorite despite no recommendation from the USM committee charged with finding a new prez].*January 2003: Thames announces that the university's nine colleges will be consolidated into five, meaning the existing deans will lose their positions. The deans must reapply for the fewer positions. The AAUP issues a statement calling the "cavalier treatment of deans reprehensible." [Thames announced this decision to a group of H'burg business leaders before anyone else at USM--deans, faculty members, etc.--heard about it.  He effectively wiped out the College of Nursing and the College of the Arts, one of the jewels in USM's crown for recruiting and accreditation purposes].*April 2003: Faculty calls for state College Board to mediate an internal flap. Faculty are concerned about a reorganization that will eliminate dean positions as well as a new evaluation system. *May 2003: The USM administration butts heads with the student-run newspaper, The Student Printz. "I'm real concerned with what we've taught our students in journalism," Thames states. *June 2003: Thames announces that the restructuring will result in 18 layoffs. Five top USM administration officials either resign or are laid off. *December 2003: USM admits problems with a student count that showed it had the largest student enrollment of any state university. Susan Siltanen, director of the Office of Institutional Research, resigns due to the student count inconsistencies. [This was called "human error."  There are still questions about what happened here and no one really  has taken the blame--Susan Siltanen was just the "fall girl" for this one.]*January 2004: The AAUP investigates whether a vice president has inaccurate information on her resume about working at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, when she was actually employed at Ashland Community College.*March 2004: Faculty questions how decisions over merit raises were decided. The university buys a full-page newspaper advertisement to defend the raises. [Thames' daughter Dana Thames receives largest pay raise of 15%]. Also, about 100 faculty positions remain unfilled and over 150 faculty members (out of 600 total--that's over 1/6) have left, to my knowledge, since Thames came into power. Enough evidence for you?"

---

You might include the abortive attempt by Jack Hanbury to rewrite the faculty handbook (originally without faculty input until the FacSen insisted.) The original section of termination procedure would have made it even easier for the administration to fire tenured professors. When the Faculty Senate rewrote the section ("11.3" became a number that immediately elicited recognition) to parallel the Ol' Miss process, Hanbury would have none of it. After a lot of wrangling and very hard work by Myron Henry we were able to fashion a system that was better than the one Hanbury wrote, but still less than perfect.

There was also the incredibly idiotic drug and alcohol policy ("zero tolerance.") Mind you, we already have a drug and alcohol policy. But the new one would have allowed random testing for many staff, faculty and grad students, would have made random testing much easier, would have required new faculty to allow themselves to be tested before hiring. AND -- the big one -- remember that the standard was "zero."  It would have been ever so easy to fail this one --

 I have taught at seven different colleges and universities -- many of the things that have been done here simply don't happen out in the civilized world (or when they do happen, they are quickly challenged and corrected).  Furthermore, to brutally fire people without fair warning, to lock them out of their offices, to escort them off campus -- these acts contradict the humanist tradition that has marked the university environment. Is that the real world? No. It isn't meant to be  -- the university is (or should be) the very last place where barbaric, cruel behavior occurs. Obviously, that ideal is often breached -- especially in day to day interpersonal relationships among faculty, staff and students.

BUT, when that behavior becomes the common standard by which a university administration treats staff and faculty, then that administration has betrayed the university community.  

Consistently repressive actions create fear. Fear makes reasoned discourse and the free and responsible expression of ideas impossible. And without its discourse, without its ferment of ideas, without its argument and (yes, even its "inefficient" debate) -- the university is no longer itself, an institution that is robust, free and perhaps even often at sometimes at odds with itself and with its community.

In the university, we respect ideas We believe that truth ultimately will prevail if debate is open. We believe that disagreements and challenges, the marshalling of evidence, and thoughtful contention,  are necessary steps in the pursuit of truth. We also believe that truth itself is provisional and subject to change as new evidence is uncovered. That is why there is a theory of relativity -- there actually is such a thing as intellectual humility.  

It is inevitable that the university community is often contentious, often a place of doubt and of skepticism -- a place where "conventional wisdom" is suspect. Some people outside of the university are uncomfortable with this, and might see that quality as something that needs correction. But it is the very thing that makes the university unique in our culture, and is its greatest strength -- and I believe is the one unique thing the university as an institution brings to our culture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: doc1246
"do you people relize how much money will leave this university if thames is fired."

---

Well, $1 million is about to leave the university because of Thames' firing of Gary Stringer.  It's not a lot compared to the $$ in Polymer Science, but it's a helluva lot in the humanities.

Plus, we're not asking that Thames be FIRED as a tenured prof.  We are asking that he be FIRED as prez.  He can go back to the bldg. named after him and cook up all sorts of non-stinky paint.  Believe me, he will never leave USM completely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: present faculty member
" You might include the abortive attempt by Jack Hanbury to rewrite the faculty handbook (originally without faculty input until the FacSen insisted.) The original section of termination procedure would have made it even easier for the administration to fire tenured professors. When the Faculty Senate rewrote the section ("11.3" became a number that immediately elicited recognition) to parallel the Ol' Miss process, Hanbury would have none of it. After a lot of wrangling and very hard work by Myron Henry we were able to fashion a system that was better than the one Hanbury wrote, but still less than perfect. There was also the incredibly idiotic drug and alcohol policy ("zero tolerance.") Mind you, we already have a drug and alcohol policy. But the new one would have allowed random testing for many staff, faculty and grad students, would have made random testing much easier, would have required new faculty to allow themselves to be tested before hiring. AND -- the big one -- remember that the standard was "zero."  It would have been ever so easy to fail this one --  I have taught at seven different colleges and universities -- many of the things that have been done here simply don't happen out in the civilized world (or when they do happen, they are quickly challenged and corrected).  Furthermore, to brutally fire people without fair warning, to lock them out of their offices, to escort them off campus -- these acts contradict the humanist tradition that has marked the university environment. Is that the real world? No. It isn't meant to be  -- the university is (or should be) the very last place where barbaric, cruel behavior occurs. Obviously, that ideal is often breached -- especially in day to day interpersonal relationships among faculty, staff and students. BUT, when that behavior becomes the common standard by which a university administration treats staff and faculty, then that administration has betrayed the university community.   Consistently repressive actions create fear. Fear makes reasoned discourse and the free and responsible expression of ideas impossible. And without its discourse, without its ferment of ideas, without its argument and (yes, even its "inefficient" debate) -- the university is no longer itself, an institution that is robust, free and perhaps even often at sometimes at odds with itself and with its community. In the university, we respect ideas We believe that truth ultimately will prevail if debate is open. We believe that disagreements and challenges, the marshalling of evidence, and thoughtful contention,  are necessary steps in the pursuit of truth. We also believe that truth itself is provisional and subject to change as new evidence is uncovered. That is why there is a theory of relativity -- there actually is such a thing as intellectual humility.   It is inevitable that the university community is often contentious, often a place of doubt and of skepticism -- a place where "conventional wisdom" is suspect. Some people outside of the university are uncomfortable with this, and might see that quality as something that needs correction. But it is the very thing that makes the university unique in our culture, and is its greatest strength -- and I believe is the one unique thing the university as an institution brings to our culture. That there is no other place like the university is a reason to preserve it -- and a reason to resist those who would change the university because "it isn't like the real world." "

---

 

Beautifully said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: doc1246
"do you people relize how much money will leave this university if thames is fired."

---

Actually, a graduate student from LSU just this afternoon emailed me a statistical report that concludes that USM will lose AT LEAST the amount below if Shelby stays ONE YEAR after the vote of no confidence:

                               Total tuition losses:                             $4,528,694

                                State subsidy losses:                          $1,630,126

                                Total meal plan losses:                        $   511,761

                                Lower bound financial burden:          $6,670,581

I will be posting this report soon--perhaps later tonight, if anyone is interested in seeing it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: doc1246
"how dare you say i  whine! no, i am not you. i do not feel that might my first amendment rights have been violated no or at any time in my life. you are right that this is a publicly funded university but there is nothing wrong with outside support or the university becoming self sufficient"

---

The overarching purpose of any public university is to educate its residents, not to provide public facilities for private corporations.  Corporate support is ok, within bounds, but USM does NOT need to become beholden to corporate interests.  I would rather my university be state-supported and obliged to follow federal and state laws than privately owned and beholden to a CEO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: fire shelby
" The overarching purpose of any public university is to educate its residents, not to provide public facilities for private corporations.  Corporate support is ok, within bounds, but USM does NOT need to become beholden to corporate interests.  I would rather my university be state-supported and obliged to follow federal and state laws than privately owned and beholden to a CEO."

---

Date:    March 12, 2004

To:       Dr. David Potter, Commissioner

Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) 

From:    Executive Officers of the Faculty Senate of The University of Southern Mississippi                 

Re:       Faculty Senate Resolution and vote of no confidence.

Enclosed please find a resolution asking the Board of Trustees of Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning to reinstate fully Dr. Francis Glamser and Dr. Gary Stringer.  Since the resolution provides a short description of what has occurred as well as a rationale for the resolution, we will not repeat that information here.  However, we believe it is worth noting that the provost, dean and respective chairs were completely unaware of Dr. Thames’ decision to initiate dismissal proceedings.  This approach to firing tenured faculty is virtually unheard of in the academy, and the heavy-handed lockouts speak volumes about an approach by Dr. Thames of “guilty until proven innocent.”  The Faculty Senate passed the resolution by a 40-0 vote in emergency session on Sunday, March 7, 2004. 

The Faculty Senate also voted 40-0 that it has no confidence in the presidency of Dr. Thames.  Senators made it clear that the no confidence resolution it not simply an outcome from Dr. Thames’ decision to begin termination proceedings against Drs. Glamser and Stringer.  Rather, the no confidence resolution stems from two years of decisions and missteps by the Thames’ administration.  These include

·         Filling virtually all top positions at the beginning of his term without the national searches that are common place to America’s best universities;

·         Implementing a college reorganization without any consultation with from faculty and staff;

·         Dismissing college deans in an exceedingly disrespectful manner;

·         Thrusting an ill-conceived Faculty Activity Report (FAR) on faculty even though departments and colleges already have regular and rigorous annual faculty performance reviews;

·         Assuring faculty of one set of purposes of the FAR, and then stating that the FAR be used for an expanded set of purposes, including from a faculty point of view purposes to which it is poorly suited;

·         Hiring still more administrators without searches or input from faculty and staff;

·         Dismissing abruptly a valued colleague who had been assured by the university that he had tenure when he was appointed;

·         Creating a new university awards committee without any conversation with the Faculty Senate which has a long-standing awards committee;

·         Releasing a ill-conceived new drug and alcohol policy without input from faculty and staff (the policy was subsequently withdrawn because of legitimate concerns about specific parts of it);

·         Reporting inflated enrollments to the Board of Trustees and then blaming one individual for the fiasco;

·         Attempting to create an USM teaching hospital in Gulfport without engaging the Board of Trustees in discussions;

·         Hiring an administrator to oversee the teaching hospital initiative within a week of the teaching hospital announcement;

·         Giving stealth salary increases to selected administrators in the second semester of 2003 that were far greater percentage wise than the two percent across the board raises that faculty and staff received.;

·         Giving sizable salary increases to selected administrators and faculty members in January 2004 without following established Faculty Handbook processes (in the case of the faculty increases); 

·         Assigning the responsibility for investigating the credentials of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development to a long time close associate to the Vice President rather than to University Counsel or some other party with professional distance from the Vice President;

·         Initiating termination proceedings against two respected senior professors based on an “investigation” conducted by the same close associate to the Vice President for Research and Economic Development who conducted the administration’s “inquiry” into the credentials of the Vice President;

·         Using heavy handed tactics in locking the two senior professors out of their offices and seizing at least one computer;

·         Attacking in personal and public ways faculty and others who have been willing to raise legitimate questions about the integrity of this administration;

Because of the unilateral and disrespectful approaches of the Thames Administration to dealing with real issues of the University in the academic year 2002-2003, a virtual meltdown in communication between Dr. Thames and the Faculty Senate took place in April 2003.  At a special spring meeting of the Faculty Senate, a resolution was overwhelmingly passed requesting that a facilitator be engaged to reopen conversations with Dr. Thames.   He declined to participate in facilitated discussion.  Members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee then tried to keep doors open for conversation, and for a while it appeared as if progress was being made.  But as soon as the noise level abated, a commitment to progress by the administration began to evaporate.

It is both with regret and resolve that the USM Faculty Senate submits its resolution to you and informs you of the 40-0 vote of no confidence in the presidency of Dr. Shelby Thames.  We truly believe we have made a good faith and honorable effort to communicate with the Thames’ Administration.  But after two years of avoidable controversies at USM for which the Thames’ Administration must take responsibility, we are completely convinced that our 40-0 vote of no confidence in the presidency of Dr. Shelby Thames is not only fully justified, but is absolutely necessary. 

 We respectfully ask that the Board of Trustees reinstate Drs. Glamser and Stringer and investigate our concerns.