Impersonation of whom?

I've heard the gossip, too.  And I also remember the Kentucky guy sending an affidavit in Dvorak's defense--his statements in his affidavit can easily be proven false by comparing his remarks to Angie's CV. 

She has supporters there.  They aren't beyond protecting her.  It'll all come out in the wash.

(When I clicked on the thread title, I was expecting to read that Paul had announced he was leaving.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Angeline
"I have seen the letters that Thames gave them the day they were fired - no mention of anything this specific.  I would be very skeptical about the validity of the rumor you are hearing.  I suspect that Thames & Co. know that someone investigated Dvorak and they don't believe Glamser when he says that he received an anonymous package forom that person (whoever he/she is).  They are going to try to convict Glamser/Stringer for the actions of a third unknown person - basically, "somone's gotta pay" attitude.  I predict in the hearings that it will turn out that Thames and Hanbury have no evidence linking either Glamser or Stringer to these charges - they don't know who did it, they only know someone did."

---

Yes.  But they have chosen "fall guys" with impeccable standards. (I have a feeling Shelby will produce an "eye witness" or two, just like he was able to find someone from Kentucky to produce an affidavit stating that there was nothing misleading about Angie's CV.) 

These rumours have been leaking out since day one. I heard they misrepresented themselves in email.  Next thing we'll hear is that they robbed an armored car and held up a couple of convenience stores on the way, to pay for their trip.  *rollseyes*

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
"These rumours have been leaking out since day one."

---

FS, sorry for the false alarm.

truth, sorry too, about the topic, I was just alarmed when I heard such crazy charges.

Thank you all for responding, and showing the evolution of this rumor. 

I too worry that people will suddenly become 'eye witnesses' 

Personally my biggest worry is the future of the university. I think no matter what happens, utimately Shelby needs to go for the sake of the entire university.

I heard they "stole" AD's social security number in order to get her records from Kentucky.  This from someone who was sure he had talked to someone who had seen the charges first hand.

There will be a lot of speculating going around on both sides in the next few weeks.  I wouldn't bet the farm on any of it.

Oh...and in the version I heard of the misrepresentation story, it was over the phone.  :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by: educator
"Using the ss# over the phone is the story I've heard from very inside sources. Thames was not going to cooperate with correct protocol in the matter.  He's very good at dodging protocol and doing what he darn well wants to - I hope this issue is brought to light in this hearing.  Somehow Adelman has got to turn the tables and expose the Shelby Shuffler."

---

And that little adage about glass houses seems to appy.  If I had been involved in some of the nefarious business dealings Shelby has been involved in, I certainly would have placed this tiny pebble (if it is true--and none of us knows whether it is) back in my pocket.

Shelby may be opening a whole can of worms to which he will soon have to respond.  A stupid move, if you ask me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" Ho hum. I heard a similar rumor (misrepresentation on the phone/e-mail) 4 days after the firings from a friend on Tim Hudson's. (And Hudson was supposedly out of the loop on all of this.) I'm not altogether sure that "impersonation" is illegal. Private investigators (and police officers) do it all the time. Heck, Shelby Thames is impersonating a college president & Angie Dvorak impersonated a tenured English professor! Consider this. Glamser & Stringer are not, I think, stupid men. Had they gone to Kentucky & illegally misrepresented themselves -- pretty stupid to begin with -- I don't think they would have made such a stink over the firing, nor do I believe they would have agreed to an open hearing after they (finally) saw the charges against them. Brace yourself, though. There are going to be some real fun allegations "leaked" to the rumor mill before the hearing date finally arrives."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: InTheKnow
"If Glamser and Stringer acted in good faith, then why didn't they confront Dr. Dvorak and ask her about her credentials?  Why did they keep everything secret until they conjured up the "anonymous packet?"  I think a lot of people are going to be very embarrassed when the truth comes out."

---

In The Know:

This is old stuff -- you are not so "in the know" but way behind the curve.

The story of how the packet went straight to the president's office (her "boss" -- at the recommendation of an ethic s professor whom Frank consulted) has been well publicized. A number of us can testify as to the veracity of that claim as well as the consternation caused when the packet was received.

And of course they didn't agree to have an open hearing until after they had seen the charges -- this administration has already proved itself capable of chracter assassination.

Finally, as Mike Adelman said, he wanted to make sure there was a level playing field -- meaning a hearing that was not organized to favor the President.

Are you kidding? As a faculty member I can tell you that I'd damn well not go into a public hearing until (1) the Shelby spin doctors and the President himself were made to stop trying to try the case in public and (2) the hearing was conducted in a way the president could not manipulate. Why do YOU think Keith didn't wanted Anderson to submit a report of his own?

I don't know if you are on the faculty or not -- I can tell you that every Senate member went through the idiocy of watching Jack Hanbury rewrite the faculty handbook to tilt the playing field even more against professors. We all watched as he and the administration resisted reasonable requests to ensure basic protections. Are you aware that Hanbury's version actually made it possible for the university lawyer to be present and involved in a hearing but for the faculty member's attorney to not be able to speak? At one point we even submitted a slightly reworked version of UM's policy on firing -- but we told (with no reason) that it was "unacceptable." This was only one of many ways in which the administration has showed it true colors.

Sheesh, get with it. When you work for an administration that is this arbitrary and capricious -- and frankly vindictive -- you use every tool you have to protect yourself. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Outside Observer
""

---

Actually, OO that is very interesting. The "contumacious behavior" charge levelled against Frank and Gary seems to stem chiefly from the "insubordination" they committed when they stopped answering lawyer Hanbury's questions on Thursday, when they did not have a lawyer or advisor present. The following day they were fired.

We have had the feeling since last spring (or a bit before) that the cards were being reshuffled to trip faculty members up on technicalities -- particularly as there seemed to be some eagerness on the part of some IHL Board members and the administration to test its ability to fire tenured faculty . . .  I see this episode at the first shot of a very aggressive war against tenure . . .

Unfortuately, as I recall, the employer has no legal responsibility to inform employees of their Weingarten Rights, but must either stop the interview or permit the third party to join the inteview if the employee requests, once it is clear to the employee that it is a disciplinary interview.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: present professor
" Actually, OO that is very interesting. The "contumacious behavior" charge levelled against Frank and Gary seems to stem chiefly from the "insubordination" they committed when they stopped answering lawyer Hanbury's questions on Thursday, when they did not have a lawyer or advisor present. The following day they were fired. We have had the feeling since last spring (or a bit before) that the cards were being reshuffled to trip faculty members up on technicalities -- particularly as there seemed to be some eagerness on the part of some IHL Board members and the administration to test its ability to fire tenured faculty . . .  I see this episode at the first shot of a very aggressive war against tenure . . . This is one reason why the control over the rewrite of the handbook was such a huge issue, as was the aborted drug and alcohol policy, the new computer policy,  and the "FAR" report. We have been blitzed with new  policies, new restrictions, new assaults on governance. It has been difficult to see the forest for the trees, and it has been difficult to mount a sustained resistence against an administration that has moved quickly to recreate the landscape of power . . . ."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Outside Observer
""

---

yep. That's why I suspect most of the charges will go up in smoke . . . as it would seem dubious one could be forced to answer questions put to you by a lawyer (no less) acting on behalf of what could only be construed as a hostile agent. I think that is pretty clear from the context -- and both men would have had to assume very quickly that their interrogation by Hanbury was not designed to simply elicit simple information but rather to build a case.

I think they were presented with a Hobson's choice and my guess is that Hanbury, who seems to have a knack for working out devious strategies, knew exactly what he was about. If they answer his questions, they risk helping him build a case. If they refuse they become "insubordinate."

In fact, I think "contumaceous behavior" might have worked better of they had been questioned by their immediate supervisor (as in a chair or dean). But then, the administration would have had to let others in on the plan.

Thanks for your take on some  of this -- it is pretty helpful and likely to be more so when we rexamine the old and new (yet to be implemented) termination policies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: InTheKnow
"Interesting speculation, but G&S did not agree to an open hearing AFTER they saw the charges.  They were given the charges on March 5 and repeatedly refused to release the charges (except to a few select cronies) and refused to agree to a public hearing.  They only agreed to a public hearing AFTER Judge Anderson said he was inclined to make it a public hearing."

---

InTheKnow, you are not as your name implies. Glamser and Stringer were given a VAGUE list of charges on March 5th. They have yet to be given a specific breakdown of the charges. An illustration: Bob is charged with misuse of company e-mail and phones. That is ALL he knows. (He is not told it was an e-mail to his cousin on January 5th, 2004 and a phone call to his grandma on her birthday on December 31, 2003.) The charges in this Glamser/Stringer case have to be given to them by April 14th (2 weeks before the hearing). If they already had them, then why did the judge make this ruling?? To my knowledge, they STILL DO NOT have the specific charges. They agreed to the open hearing when the judge was appointed to ensure fairness and the like. They refused a public hearing when Shelby Thames was the judge, jury, and prosecutor.

As far as your Dvorak remark, the AAUP did as advised by a business ethics professor. The packet that WAS GIVEN TO THEM (not as you say, created by them) was given to Dvorak's immediate supervisor, Shelby Thames, to look into. He should have taken care of it and reported back to them in a timely manner. It may do you some good to do your homework on these topics before you go shooting from the hip (like someone else we know........). 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: give me a break
" They did  -- the questions about Dvorak's credentials were no secret to anyone from the beginning.  When she finally did respond to questions about her credentials, it took the form of a threat to sue.  But I don't think you really care anyway.  As you and your people are well aware, if you just repeat the same stupidities (e.g. the 'conjured' package) enough times someone will print it and then others may believe it.  Let's hope the hearing is an honest and fair one.  Even if G&S were not angels (and I suspect they basically were), the fact is they were in pursuit of the TRUTH.  The admin was (and is) in pursuit of covering its ass. "

---

Thank you missi, for correcting me in the previous post. As you accurately noted, Frank and Gary have not yet (as far as we know) seen the charges.

Not that it matters, but In the Know should know that the special ad hoc Senate Committee looking into Divorak's credentials has recommended to the Senate that she not serve on tenure and promotion committees, as the committee believes that she does not have appropriate academic standing. The Senate has accepted this part of the preliminary report though it has not voted to accept the recommendations as its own as of yet.

The committee has also asked for VP Divorak's cv in order to determine two other major points springing from the issue of her credentials. As you remember, there is some disagreement about exactly what copy of the cv is the "official" version which she has used in jer job application and grant writing.

As the HA reported, she has agreed to personally show the committee the cv, but only in the presence of the provost and the president of fac sen. She will not turn over a copy of the cv prior to the interview and I believe she has not indicated that she will give the committee a copy once the interview is over.

I believe the senate has agreed that the committee should seek an interview but should make getting a copy of the cv in advance a pre-requisite.

Most of our CV's are public record. When I was in New York the public had a right to request my cv be made available. I suspect that, as government employees, faculty in the state of Mississippi are assumed to practice transparency with regard to work history. I hope that even In the Know will agree that the continuing uncertainty about her cv and Divorak's failure to release it certainly hurts her cause, and I hope cannot be presumed to be any less suspicious than anything that Gary and Frank have so far done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: educator
"Present professor -- you rock."

---

Educator: so do you.

And I haven't forgotten on that other thread where you opened up a conversation about a class action suit . . . that sounds oddly familiar to me . . . . hmmmmm . . .

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"To expand just a little on Present Professor's remarks: A vita is a public document. Anyone who restricts access to the vita he or she submitted at the time of hiring is hiding something. In the case I've mentioned before, of the professor who falsely claimed that a foreign degree was the equivalent of a Ph.D., there was a period of approximately one year when neither the professor nor the chair of the professor's department would allow anyone to see the vita submitted at the time of hiring. That was of course because it said "Ph.D.", and failed to give the complete name of the foreign degree. The Faculty Senate commmittee should require Dvorak's vita in advance, and permission to reproduce it--as a condition of meeting with her. "

---