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.