elliot

Nice take. I had myself wondered what sorts of "pressure" and "culpability" the UAC profs would be under.

This is new territory, staked out because of an unprecidented action by a university president, never before done this way at state supported research universities. I think even the Al Ayrian case at South Florida had some due process along the way before he was fired. Even when it was espionage and treason, S. Florida had more due process than we have had.

Thus, I am not sure the fallout to the six profs on the UAC. I think many would like a verdict just to get the problem resolved as soon as possible, though if Thames remains even one more month, the results would be very negative.

The reality is that the UAC will meet in this newly configured "process" and they will deliver a recommendation. The judge will render a recommendation, and Thames will inevitably recommend termination.

It is all up to the college board, and there will be 4 new members, so in essence (given that three retiring IHL board members are staunchly anti-USM) Governer Barbour holds much of the cards now.

Yes, the governor must come through here with "qualified" IHL people. Something tells me he will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Wise1
"If the professors win the hearing, the case is not over by a long shot."

Are we to assume from this comment that if President Thames loses, he will not do the honorable thing and apologize (and then, one hopes, resign)?  I guess you see him as even more arrogant and stubborn than I had imagined him to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"
Are we to assume from this comment that if President Thames loses, he will not do the honorable thing and apologize (and then, one hopes, resign)?  I guess you see him as even more arrogant and stubborn than I had imagined him to be."

---

You didn't see Thames' face at the meeting held on March 9, when one of the students asked him if he would resign. He practically stamped his foot and said a very petulant, very emphatic "NO." No, he will not resign, we will have to force him out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Wise1
" Everyone knows the UAC members and/or their spouses are all either AAUP or FS.  Andy Weist spoke out against the administration without knowing one single fact.  The board can decide whatever it wants, especially if the UAC ignores all the evidence, as everyone knows they will.
"

---

The president has assured us that the AAUP is a tiny minority of the faculty so they are unlikely to be on the committee. Also, when a faculty senate votes 100% no confidence and a faculty votes 93% no confidence, perhaps they have seen all the evidence they need over the past two years to be convinced that the administration is the problem.

Elliot-I am not sure under what legal theory the UAC members would be liable for their recommendation to the College Board.  I am also not sure why it makes a difference whether they play a role in deciding how the process is conducted or whether they act simply as a jury.  How is their role any different from any other supervisor making a decision about his or her employee where you are allowed to make adverse decisions all the time without legal recourse as long as you don't violate certain rights (e.g. fire someone for being a member of a protected class like a minority, woman, over forty, etc.) or commit some specific tort?  Moreover, it the professors agree to follow the process outlined by the AG, then I would assume that they are estopped from basing a claim (I am not sure what type of claim they would have) against members of the UAC that they didn't follow the proceedings set out in the Faculty Handbook.

Also, on the due process issue, I am not sure what more the professors could ask for at this point.  Presumably, they are going to get a fair hearing with a chance to review all of the facts prior to the hearing, conduct discovery, have an opportunity to present testimony and witnesses, cross-examine opposing witnesses, and have an impartial decision maker.  If y'all are going to keep discussing due process, at least base it on what due process actually means.  Due process doesn't mean they can't be fired; it means they are entitled to a fair proceeding to determine whether the personnel decision initiated by Thames is legitimate and supported by the evidence (doesn't seem likely).

 

 

 

 

 

 

The IHL Board can NOT be trusted to insure fairness.  They succumb easily to the political leanings of the people who gave them their positions on this Board. Take it from one who knows --

quote:

---

Originally posted by: present professor
"I'd love to hear more on that one. I think we need to engage in some serious public dialogue and lobbying about the board itself . . . ."

---

If there is any good thing to come out of the USM debacle, I certainly hope its reform of the IHL board selection process. I favor some requirements for members (other than getting politically appointed) & I favor much shorter terms.

There should be independent investigations of potential conflicts of interest among board members. Asking the AG's office for an opinion is a classic fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation. The AG is elected & the same guys who can buy favor with the governor can buy favor with the attorney general.

I can think of no IHL members who should be investigated more closely than Thames' top boosters, Klumb & Nicholson. Questions such as, "Who are their business clients?" or "What is their record of contributions to political candidates?" or "Has this guy ever hit a lick of work with a snake besides his political jobs?"

The IHL board has some serious, sincere members. I think. But it also has its share of yahoos that bought their appointments or called in markers for earlier political favors.

I am so tired of this "no one knows the facts" crap expressed by Wise1 and his ilk.  There are several different issues involved here.  One, there is a specific termination proceeding involving the professors.  Wise1 is correct that no one except for Thames, Hanbury and the mysterious outside lawyers know with certainty what the actual allegations and alleged factual basis for the decision to initiate termination are, and we won't know the "truth" about the basis of these terminations until completion of the process.  Although no one now knows with certainty the veracity of this factual basis, people are understandably dubious of Thames' position because of Thames past conduct towards the faculty, his idiotic decision to have a close personal friend of Dvorak conduct the investigation into the initial allegations raised by Stringer and Glamser and subsequent investigation of Stringer and Glamser, and his autocratic, thin-skinned, and apparently egomanical reaction to all the questions and concerns raised by others in response to his actions.

But separate and apart from the specific termination proceedings, there are plenty of facts that support the conclusion that Thames does not possess the qualities necessary to lead a public university.  In his statements throughout this process and before, he appears vindictive and spiteful.  He seems either unable or unwilling to seek input from the majority of the university community in making major decisions that affect everyone involved with USM.  He surrounds himself with sycophants who apparently do his bidding without question.  Obviously, this is my opinion and is shared by the majority of the board, but there are plenty of "facts" that we can point to supporting this opinion.  The idea that someone has to wait to see the result of the termination proceedings or see what "facts" will come out of this proceeding to conclude that Thames continued presidency will have a long-term, negative impact on USM is remarkable.