Wahoo!

Open hearings.  Now we really get to see the truth for USM!

Alot of people went out on a limb for these two guys and they better hope they can back up what they have started.  BUT my guess is they cannot.

We shall see as the evidence is produced.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm
" The burden of proof is on Shelby...I don't know what you are talking about."

---

Exactly. 

Let's see if Shelby supporters continue to support him after they hear how ludicrous the charges are. 

Here is what I think led to the open hearing:

A week ago, neither the professors nor their attorney had been presented the 51-pages of specific charges against them.

I understand that Shelby and Co. had to submit the charges and a list of evidence and witnesses to the profs and their attorney before a specified date.

Under no circumstances would I agree to an open hearing had I been them.  It isn't about what they might have DONE wrong--it IS about what Shelby might have ACCUSED them of doing.

Perhaps the profs/Adelman received the charges within the past couple of days, and, after seeing that they would easily win, decided to open the hearings.  If this is the case, Shelby's open-hearing spin will have backfired on him.

Remember, two weeks ago, he was in the public pushing to set open hearings for THIS week.  At that point, he had not supplied the specific charges, evidence, witnesses to Adelman. 

After the appointment of Anderson on Thursday, I am sure Shelby was told to submit the lists of charges, evidence, witnesses to Adelman.  Finally, after more than a month, the profs saw the specific charges and decided to make the hearings open.

I do know that people who saw the termination letter the profs received said it was ludicrous.  Perhaps the specific charges are just as ridiculous.  We shall see.....

A few random observations...

An open hearing means that Thames' charges against the professors will be publicized, regardless of their validity. This is what the administration wants.

An open hearing also means that the professors' arguments vis-a-vis due process will be publicized, regardless of their validity. My guess is that Mr Adelman feels that these arguments far outweigh the validity of the charges against his clients. I hope he's not gambling, although in poker terms, he's basically calling Shelby's bluff.

An open hearing means also that any statements made either way will probably be uncritically parrotted in the press. In other words, it is not likely to settle the matter for most folks. Shelby's supporters will take what they want away from the hearing, regardless of the outcome, and the profs' supporters will do the same.

Remember, too, that newspaper & TV reporters are, as a group, not deep thinkers. A lot of how the hearing plays in the press will revolve around which side plays to the "one sentence per paragraph" mentality of the press. I'll opine that mentality is much closer to Lisa Mader's than to the professors'. Shelby has a staff that can spend as much time (and taxpayer money) as possible spinning things. The profs do not.

Personally, I think the open hearing is a bad idea for the university in general. A lot of dirty laundry may get put on the line, so to speak.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm
"I just learned from my source that the hearings will be held in the Union upstairs rooms.  Wonder if Unique Catering will provide those little cheese biscuits and peach punch?  Forget "Southern Miss to the Top"....this is going to be "USM under the Big Top."  A real media circus."

---

LOL!  I assumed they would hold it under the "big top"--Reed Green.

By the time the media sets up in the Union rooms, there will be little room for observers.

This is the last part of the article on hattiesburgamerican's website.. Does the last line mean that this hearing may end up serving no purpose 

*****************************

Glamser is president of the USM chapter of American Association of University Professors, which started the probe, and asked Stringer to be in charge. The two professors have said they are accused of misusing university computers and telephones during the investigation of Dvorak.

Adelman will ask Anderson to allow broadcast and print cameras in the hearing under the guidelines adopted last year by the state Supreme Court.

"I think there have to be some restrictions, but that's strictly up to Justice Anderson," he said. "We're concerned that we have an orderly hearing."

Anderson was out of his office on Wednesday and not expected back until Monday, an assistant said.

The hearing will be transcribed and videotaped and the record turned over to the University Advisory Committee and Thames. The committee and Thames will each make a recommendation to Anderson who will forward them, along with his own recommendation and the record, to the College Board.

The board will make a decision based on the recommendations or hold its own hearing.

**********************************

COULD SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE LAST LINE..