quote:

---

Originally posted by:
" Considering the fact that Shelby claims to have spent six weeks preparing these charges, and that he has been sitting on these charges since March 5, does anyone else find his waiting until the last day to hand over the charges to Adelman extremely mean-spirited and petty?"

---

Its not mean spirited. Lawyers comply with the requirements placed upon them without giving any unneccessary advantage to the opposing side. Its what I would expect my lawyer to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Anonymous
" Its not mean spirited. Lawyers comply with the requirements placed upon them without giving any unneccessary advantage to the opposing side. Its what I would expect my lawyer to do. "

---

 

Ummm...this isn't a divorce suit or a malpractice suit.  Shelby doesn't have anything to lose, personally.  Why should Shelby be worried about giving Glamser and Stringer an "unnecessary advantage?"  In a hearing over the termination of these two men, what exactly would be considered an "unnecessary advantage?"  Allowing their lawyer time to prepare his case?

The only thing, at this point, Shelby stands to lose is "face." (Perhaps, later, his job.) If he is certain that his charges against the two profs are justified, then why the legal jockeying? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
"   The only thing, at this point, Shelby stands to lose is "face." (Perhaps, later, his job.) If he is certain that his charges against the two profs are justified, then why the legal jockeying?  "

---

This is what will finally come out at the end of this hearing...just how mean-spirited and petty Shelby really is.  Shelby knows his charges are trumped-up.  I suppose he thinks that somehow they will stand???  Who knows what he thinks.  I just want him out of the Dome...the sooner, the better.

Even if Glamser and Stringer prevail, they have been put through the wringer. The message to other faculty is clear: watch your step. If Thames puts out bogus numbers or a bad policy next year, who is going to speak up? As long as he is in charge, there will be a climate of fear. The charges never had to be real to have the desired effect.

"I spoke to Gary today and he confirmed that the turnover is tomorrow and they haven't seen anything yet. He seems fine but both he and Frank mentioned that they are worried that "evidence" might be fabricated. I think this highly unlikely since, if proven, what really amounts to a civil case might well become a case of criminality for those who manufacture th evidence. I also think it would require expertise beyond the reach of these folks . . . . "

Folks would have thought their being fired highly unlikely before it happened. They manufactured enrollment data, got caught, and nothing really happened. In fact, of all the things they have done, they haven't been caught up in it. The IHL Board basically glossed over the findings; newspapers don't follow up or even ask hard questions; and good ole red-blooded honest citizens say it's all hogwash and we just need to respect authority. I don't think it is that far a stretch to think they would attempt to manufacture evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
""

---

You both make good points. The sad thing is to know that both of these men are worried about it -- contributing to the anxiety of the whole process. I thought I knew a lot about how a termination process would be -- I'm learning I didn't really know a thing, especially about how emotionally difficult it would be, even for two strong personalities convinced of their innocence and rectitude. It is pretty appalling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
""

---

How can one be assured that they won't "get away with it?" I believe that will become the number one concern in the following days. It's hard to proove falsified documentation without genuine expert testimony.

Who can be courageous enough to testify given the intimidation present.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Wonder
"Where's the affadavit by the UK administrator? Who is it? I have some (minor) contacts at UK and might be able to get more info."

---

Miller's affidavit

Affidavit of Jimmy Jack Miller

Comes now the affiant, Jimmy Jack Miller, being duly placed under oath, and states as follows:

1. My name is Jimmy Jack Miller and I am currently retired from the University of Kentucky as a professor of communication in the community college branch.

2. I served as the community college member of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees for the period of 1995 through 1997.

3. In August of 1997, Dr. Angeline Dvorak was hired by the University of Kentucky to serve as the President and CEO of Ashland Community College. She held that position until October 2000.

4. At the time Dr. Dvorak was hired by The University of Kentucky, all community colleges comprised one of three branches of the University of Kentucky. The community college branch was owned, operated and governed exclusively by The University of Kentucky. Tenured faculty appointments for the community college branch were made exclusively through the University of Kentucky by the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees. Tenure was awarded only by the University of Kentucky, not by Ashland Community College.

5. No tenure in administration has ever been granted at the University of Kentucky. Tenure is granted to administrators only as faculty members who have successfully completed the tenure process and tenure is granted within the faculty member's academic discipline.

6. Effective July 1, 1998, the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky, of which I had been a voting member, appointed Dr. Dvorak as a tenured associate professor of English with the University of Kentucky and assigned to the community college branch of the University. Dr. Dvorak held that appointment during her entire employment with Ashland Community College.

7. In 1997, the Kentucky legislature passed the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act (House Bill 1), which created the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). House Bill 1 brought Kentucky's 13 community colleges and 15 technical colleges under one governing board. This transition was effectuated during 1997-2000. However, under the provisions of House Bill 1, Dr. Dvorak remained an employee of the University of Kentucky and retained her appointment as a tenured associate professor of English with the University of Kentucky.

8. I have thoroughly read the resume of Dr. Dvorak, particularly with regard to her description of her period of employment at Ashland Community College and her tenured academic appointment by the University of Kentucky. Dr. Dvorak's resume contains no misstatement of fact and accurately describes her employment status with the University of Kentucky.

Further the Affiant sayeth naught this 20th day of January, 2004.

Jimmy Jack Miller.

---

Thames' statement

Claims have recently been made by the local chapter of the AAUP against Dr. Angeline Dvorak. These charges have very serious implications, for both Dr. Dvorak and The University of Southern Mississippi community. They strike at the very heart of this institution and its faculty. We have verified that Dr. Dvorak's credentials are accurate. The claims made by this small group of faculty are not accurate.

We have conferred with the appropriate individuals who held relevant positions of authority at the University of Kentucky at the time of Dr. Dvorak's employment at Ashland Community College. These individuals formerly served as the President of the University, a member of its Board of Trustees, and the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the University of Kentucky Community College division. We have verified the truth.

From August 1997 to October 2000, Dr. Dvorak was employed as President and CEO of Ashland Community College, in Ashland, Kentucky. At the time Dr. Dvorak was hired in that position all Kentucky community colleges comprised one of three divisions of the University of Kentucky. The community college divisions were owned, operated and governed exclusively by the University of Kentucky. Tenured faculty appointments for the community college division were made through the University of Kentucky by the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees. Tenure was awarded only by the University of Kentucky, not by Ashland Community College.

Effective July 1, 1998, Dr. Dvorak was appointed by the University of Kentucky as a tenured associate professor of English, assigned to the community college division of the University. She held that appointment during her entire employment with Ashland Community College.

In 1997, the Kentucky legislature passed the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act (House Bill 1), which created the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). House Bill 1 brought Kentucky's 13 community colleges and 15 technical colleges under one governing board. This transition was effectuated during 1997-2000. However, under the provisions of House Bill 1, Dr. Dvorak remained an employee of the University of Kentucky and retained her appointment as a tenured associate professor of English with the University of Kentucky.

I am extremely disappointed that a very small group of faculty would attempt to discredit the impeccable credentials of someone who has given so much to our University. These negative and unsubstantiated statements are without merit. They do not represent the views of the vast majority of our outstanding faculty. Dr. Dvorak has our full and unequivocal support. Despite this effort to discredit one of the most productive members of the Southern Miss family, we will continue to move forward with our work to make The University of Southern Mississippi an institution of which we all can be proud.

Several things of interest in this affidavit.

First, it does not address Dvorak's "helpful" placement of (Lexington, KY) after the University of Kentucky, on some versions of her vita. (Including the one she submitted when she applied for the job at USM?)

Second, the affidavit states:

5. No tenure in administration has ever been granted at the University of Kentucky. Tenure is granted to administrators only as faculty members who have successfully completed the tenure process and tenure is granted within the faculty member's academic discipline.

This is standard language, but it is also misleading. Many state universities attach a tenured faculty position to a position in academic administration. Tenure is awarded because the person was hired to the administrative position, not because of his or her record in teaching or research. Indeed, nothing by way of teaching or research would normally be expected while he or she is an administrator.

Thames' statement shows that he has some trouble making up his mind: he claims that Dvorak got tenure in 1998 while simultaneously claiming that she held the tenured Associate Professor position the whole time she was at Ashland Community College. (1997-2000). Perhaps because Dvorak's vita made it appear that tenure was awarded the minute she walked in the door at Ashland Community College? (The affidavit ignores that issue as well.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
"

7. In 1997, the Kentucky legislature passed the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act (House Bill 1), which created the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). House Bill 1 brought Kentucky's 13 community colleges and 15 technical colleges under one governing board. This transition was effectuated during 1997-2000. However, under the provisions of House Bill 1, Dr. Dvorak remained an employee of the University of Kentucky and retained her appointment as a tenured associate professor of English with the University of Kentucky.
8. I have thoroughly read the resume of Dr. Dvorak, particularly with regard to her description of her period of employment at Ashland Community College and her tenured academic appointment by the University of Kentucky. Dr. Dvorak's resume contains no misstatement of fact and accurately describes her employment status with the University of Kentucky.
Further the Affiant sayeth naught this 20th day of January, 2004.
Jimmy Jack Miller.

.
"

---

Note the prepositions "by" and "with," and the absence of "at" with respect to the University of Kentucky. The USM press releases and web bio all say"at." Also, the rank of "Associate Professor of English" does not exist in the Kentucky junior college system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
" Note the prepositions "by" and "with," and the absence of "at" with respect to the University of Kentucky. The USM press releases and web bio all say"at." Also, the rank of "Associate Professor of English" does not exist in the Kentucky junior college system. "

---

EXCELLENT point, Flash!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" What is standard procedure for law enforcement when a computer is impounded as evidence in a investigation? What's the ethical difference in doctoring the contents of a hard drive & bogussing an enrollment report? Ends justify means, right? "

---

These were exactly the points a number of us were trying to make back in the fall when the computer policy was promulgated. Right now, there are no systems to protect the contents of the computer, nor to prevent those who seized it from having a fishing expedition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
" Miller's affidavit Affidavit of Jimmy Jack Miller Comes now the affiant, Jimmy Jack Miller, being duly placed under oath, and states as follows: 1. My name is Jimmy Jack Miller and I am currently retired from the University of Kentucky as a professor of communication in the community college branch. 2. I served as the community college member of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees for the period of 1995 through 1997. 3. In August of 1997, Dr. Angeline Dvorak was hired by the University of Kentucky to serve as the President and CEO of Ashland Community College. She held that position until October 2000. 4. At the time Dr. Dvorak was hired by The University of Kentucky, all community colleges comprised one of three branches of the University of Kentucky. The community college branch was owned, operated and governed exclusively by The University of Kentucky. Tenured faculty appointments for the community college branch were made exclusively through the University of Kentucky by the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees. Tenure was awarded only by the University of Kentucky, not by Ashland Community College. 5. No tenure in administration has ever been granted at the University of Kentucky. Tenure is granted to administrators only as faculty members who have successfully completed the tenure process and tenure is granted within the faculty member's academic discipline. 6. Effective July 1, 1998, the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky, of which I had been a voting member, appointed Dr. Dvorak as a tenured associate professor of English with the University of Kentucky and assigned to the community college branch of the University. Dr. Dvorak held that appointment during her entire employment with Ashland Community College. 7. In 1997, the Kentucky legislature passed the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act (House Bill 1), which created the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). House Bill 1 brought Kentucky's 13 community colleges and 15 technical colleges under one governing board. This transition was effectuated during 1997-2000. However, under the provisions of House Bill 1, Dr. Dvorak remained an employee of the University of Kentucky and retained her appointment as a tenured associate professor of English with the University of Kentucky. 8. I have thoroughly read the resume of Dr. Dvorak, particularly with regard to her description of her period of employment at Ashland Community College and her tenured academic appointment by the University of Kentucky. Dr. Dvorak's resume contains no misstatement of fact and accurately describes her employment status with the University of Kentucky. Further the Affiant sayeth naught this 20th day of January, 2004. Jimmy Jack Miller. Thames' statement Claims have recently been made by the local chapter of the AAUP against Dr. Angeline Dvorak. These charges have very serious implications, for both Dr. Dvorak and The University of Southern Mississippi community. They strike at the very heart of this institution and its faculty. We have verified that Dr. Dvorak's credentials are accurate. The claims made by this small group of faculty are not accurate. We have conferred with the appropriate individuals who held relevant positions of authority at the University of Kentucky at the time of Dr. Dvorak's employment at Ashland Community College. These individuals formerly served as the President of the University, a member of its Board of Trustees, and the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the University of Kentucky Community College division. We have verified the truth. From August 1997 to October 2000, Dr. Dvorak was employed as President and CEO of Ashland Community College, in Ashland, Kentucky. At the time Dr. Dvorak was hired in that position all Kentucky community colleges comprised one of three divisions of the University of Kentucky. The community college divisions were owned, operated and governed exclusively by the University of Kentucky. Tenured faculty appointments for the community college division were made through the University of Kentucky by the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees. Tenure was awarded only by the University of Kentucky, not by Ashland Community College. Effective July 1, 1998, Dr. Dvorak was appointed by the University of Kentucky as a tenured associate professor of English, assigned to the community college division of the University. She held that appointment during her entire employment with Ashland Community College. In 1997, the Kentucky legislature passed the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act (House Bill 1), which created the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS). House Bill 1 brought Kentucky's 13 community colleges and 15 technical colleges under one governing board. This transition was effectuated during 1997-2000. However, under the provisions of House Bill 1, Dr. Dvorak remained an employee of the University of Kentucky and retained her appointment as a tenured associate professor of English with the University of Kentucky. I am extremely disappointed that a very small group of faculty would attempt to discredit the impeccable credentials of someone who has given so much to our University. These negative and unsubstantiated statements are without merit. They do not represent the views of the vast majority of our outstanding faculty. Dr. Dvorak has our full and unequivocal support. Despite this effort to discredit one of the most productive members of the Southern Miss family, we will continue to move forward with our work to make The University of Southern Mississippi an institution of which we all can be proud."

---

 

Well, there's a piece of rotten news. If this is accurate as to how business is/was done in KY, then any accusations about falsification of her work record based on "common academic practice" will fall before the greater authority of the law of the state of kentucky. i'm astonished (a) that i've not seen this before, and (b) that my distinguished colleagues here on the board and elsewhere at USM have not seen as much.  Only hope of getting rid of Dvorak is that there is some false statement in this affidavit.

I understand that what is described goes against all experience of common practice in the academy, but that means nothing if this is was the law of KY at the time of Dvorak's employ there. 

I suppose we could accuse her of shading the truth according to common practice, but she would certainly be within her rights to represent herself as tenured "by the University of Kentucky." 

If the affidavit is accurate, then we are the ones ignorant of how business is/was conducted in KY higher education in that period.

This document is the worst news I've heard since March 5.

On reflection it struck me that maybe it didn't make much difference in the S/G case anyway, though it certainly makes our side look silly.

Where has he backed off this statement--might be useful if you've got a link.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
"   Yeah, I agree that Shelby depending on an affidavit from a retired community college instructor instead of someone in administration at UK does make his side look silly.  Couldn't he have found ANYONE at UK to back up Dvorak?  Apparently not.  "

---

I fear you misunderstand, Fire.  It makes OUR side, the Stringer/Glamser side, look silly. The guy was on the equiv of IHL, wasn't he? And what the affidavit says is that was the way business was done in KY.

Our side is left saying "This is the way it's usually done in academia," which is true, but if the law in KY was otherwise, what is "usually done" in academic circles is meaningless.

Sure, she's fudging, but the fudging is legal and accurate.  We look silly for not knowing that was the way they did things in KY at that time.

What, you want we should take on the state of KY and tell them they oughta offer tenure and so one the way WE THOUGHT IT WAS DONE everywhere?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: I forget my name
" I fear you misunderstand, Fire.  It makes OUR side, the Stringer/Glamser side, look silly. The guy was on the equiv of IHL, wasn't he? And what the affidavit says is that was the way business was done in KY. Our side is left saying "This is the way it's usually done in academia," which is true, but if the law in KY was otherwise, what is "usually done" in academic circles is meaningless. Sure, she's fudging, but the fudging is legal and accurate.  We look silly for not knowing that was the way they did things in KY at that time. What, you want we should take on the state of KY and tell them they oughta offer tenure and so one the way WE THOUGHT IT WAS DONE everywhere?  "

---

 

Why do you think she refuses to meet with the Faculty Senate? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"

Note the prepositions "by" and "with," and the absence of "at" with respect to the University of Kentucky. The USM press releases and web bio all say"at." Also, the rank of "Associate Professor of English" does not exist in the Kentucky junior college system.



"

---

I am repeating this because some of you sleep deprived posters missed the point. The key is "at." If you say you were a faculty member "at" somewhere it means you were there in body. If you were never there, you are being dishonest. If you claim a rank that does not exist where you work, you are being dishonest. For anyone in higher education, including Kentucky, this is not a close call. People who teach "at" UNC Greensboro are tenured "in" or "by" the UNC system. They are not tenured "at" THE University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. To claim so would be an obvious attempt to deceive the reader. In academia this is a very serious transgression that normally results in termination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"In academia this is a very serious transgression that normally results in termination."

---

Can you provide some specific instances where someone was actually terminated for misuse of a preposition? More specifically, can you find a case where a person hired as an administrator was fired for subtly misrepresenting something on his/her vita?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"

Can you provide some specific instances where someone was actually terminated for misuse of a preposition? More specifically, can you find a case where a person hired as an administrator was fired for subtly misrepresenting something on his/her vita?"

---

Yes. George O'Leary was fired at Notre Dame for a resume saying he was "on" the varsity football team at New Hampshire, when, in fact, he was "with" them as a sub. Notre Dame has integrity.

Besides, "Associate Professor of English" is way more than a preposition. I repeat, that rank does not exist at Ashland Community College. That isn't subtle. Why would anybody who taught there claim it? Could it be that she wished to look like she was AT the University of Kentucky, Lexington?

All the affidavit shows is that some people in high places in an academic institution will make statements at variance with the rules that govern their own institutions, in order to protect an administrator.

It just means that Glamser, Stringer, and Adelman are going to have to pick the affidavit apart.  They are certainly capable of doing so.

In the case of the professor who claimed a Ph. D. on the basis of a foreign degree that didn't reach that level, there was a completely worthless "official investigation," in which a brand-new administrator who had no idea what was going on was fed all kinds of misinformation about the faculty member's accomplishments, and duly reproduced virtually all of it in an official report.  That report took more work to pick apart than this affidavit will.

If Dvorak's statements about her Associate Profesor position were really OK by University of Kentucky standards, she would be able to get the President or Provost of the University of Kentucky and the current chair of the English department at UKY to support her.

Have any of those folks been heard from?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"Besides, "Associate Professor of English" is way more than a preposition. I repeat, that rank does not exist at Ashland Community College. That isn't subtle."

---

Whew! I keep waiting for somebody to say, "Those aren't prepositions, those are participles." Or some other part of speech I don't remember the name of. (Something is dangling there... )

I actually checked the Ashland website & all the faculty are listed as "instructors." But Dvorak was "tenured" through UK, not Ashland & was "tenured" as an Associate Professor. I know other folks who had "tenured" positions with rank titles brokered through UK for community colleges.

I agree that her vita is misleading. But I'll offer to you that that sort of thing really isn't that uncommon among administrators, particularly those who are over-reaching.

Compound this by the fact that Dvorak had left academia & taken a foray into the world of political appointments. Among politicians, qualifications are routinely inflated & confabulated. I guess what I'm saying is that, in her circles it isn't "fraud" to overstate one's background; it's normal operating procedure.

Thus, Dr. Dvorak has a different set of "conceptual goggles" than the faculty who investigated her vita. The operative word here is Zeitgeist. Hers is administrative/political.

I most emphatically am not defending Dr. Dvorak for publishing a "misleading" resume', nor am I suggesting that she is actually qualified to make tenure decisions about faculty at USM. I am simply suggesting that it is quite probable that she really doesn't see anything wrong with her vita.

Some time ago, early in the history of the website, I suggested some alternative language and arguments for dealing with the business community.  It wasn't that the academic arguments weren't good or valid, just that they weren't understood in a business community context.  I have to agree with Invictus here for the same sort of reasons.  I think we are nitpicking about degrees of academic dishonesty.  If "fudging" is where there will be ultimate concensus, then the world is not going to crumble around this administration.  There are bigger issues here and poor management of the university is at the very top of the list.  Examples of poor management are what we have to hammer over and over again to bring a more diverse group to our side.  The point has been made about the vita and it is simply not a strong enough point to oust this administration.  93% of the faculty not supporting the administration, rumors of financial malfeasance, rumors that faculty senate will be disbanded, concern that administration has no intention of responding to FOIA requests, EEOC violations, an increasing array of cohorts with felony and/or "under indictment" backgrounds, loss of financial support, campus unrest, faculty turnover, lowered quality standards, higher freshman attrition rates, and on and on...these are the issues that are more likely to capture widespread support.  I don't mean to criticize the folks who keep pushing at the resume issue, it's just that you're preaching to the choir while the congregation has fallen asleep (and, meanwhile, we're not recuriting new members!)

Salesperson has a good point.

The vita issues matter to Glamser and Stringer, and to the Faculty Senate. They do have a broader relevance, as a sign of dishonesty, corruption, and poor management in the USM administration. But obviously the wider case has to be made as well.

Someone who knows the different dimensions of poor administration at USM, and their consequences for the university and its students, needs to pull the case together, in a way the public can understand.

And the case needs to include a call for an audit of the accounts at USM, with the "problem units" singled out.

What is the accreditation agency for universities in Mississippi? In the Northeast, it's NEASC, and in NY it was Middle States. Does an accrediting agency have opinions on whether people involved in faculty tenure/promotion decisions should have been through the process themselves?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Salesperson has a good point. The vita issues matter to Glamser and Stringer, and to the Faculty Senate. They do have a broader relevance, as a sign of dishonesty, corruption, and poor management in the USM administration. But obviously the wider case has to be made as well. Someone who knows the different dimensions of poor administration at USM, and their consequences for the university and its students, needs to pull the case together, in a way the public can understand. And the case needs to include a call for an audit of the accounts at USM, with the "problem units" singled out. "

---

Thank you, Dr. Campbell.  This can be done, perhaps even different versions from different perspectives.  I will commit to one.  There is another critical issue here and it ties in to the paranoia expressed on other threads.  There is no one in senior administration who can be trusted.  It's hard for people on the outside to understand, let alone believe, that.  There is not a great deal of faith in the IHL board.  I have heard good things about the Commissioner of Education but understand that he is dealing with an overwhelming personal situation right now, which is likely to preclude any active involvement on his part.  So, who do we appeal to?  The Governor?  Copy the Governor on letters to the Board?  I am not asking facetiously here - who cares?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Wonder
"Has anyone looked at the accreditation issue? Accreditation is a big deal, and a look at SACSCOC's website shows that USM is coming up for accreditation in 2006."

---

That may be a little inaccurate & here's why. SACS is in the process of transitioning from an old set of rules (the "Criteria") to a new, less prescriptive system (the "Principles"). Ordinarily, there's a 10-year interval between reaffirmations (self-studies). USM was reaffirmed in 1995, which means they were actively doing their self-study in 1993-1995. USM's next reaffirmation will be after an 11 year interval.

Whether the '06 date represents the year that all the reports have to be presented to SACS -- in which case folks should be beginning to work on the self study now -- or the '06 date represents the year that the first "compliance audit" report has to be filed, I dunno.

I wouldn't be surprised if the reaffirmation gets pushed back even further due to the SACS transition.

Question 1: Has USM already appointed a self study director? If so, who?

Question 2: Who is USM's liaison on the SACS staff?

I think Iddad may be correct here.

I also understand that there were "problems" back under Lucas/Flemming.

The bad news is that it does not take much of a stretch to extend the time trend to the volatile issues of faculty governance and academic freedom to see that the overall accreditation may be even more in jeopardy.

i know for a fact ST attended the last SACS meeting (in Nov or Dec., 2003).  I think Brad Bond is the "point person" on SACS.  We're in trouble--in fact, we were in trouble on some issues in '95 and some of the problems haven't been really dealt with even today.  They may seem mundane issues to things going on currently, but they are critically important in SACS mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
"   Why do you think she refuses to meet with the Faculty Senate?  "

---

Please. I am not a sympathizer. I despise Shelby and almost every single person he has hired or engaged or touched.  He is destroying this university.  Dvorak is an idiot and way out of her league.

But if her vita is legally accurate, then that trumps the common practice. 

Maybe we should have found out if her self-presentation was legally accurate BEFORE it fot to this point?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: I forget my name
" Please. I am not a sympathizer. I despise Shelby and almost every single person he has hired or engaged or touched.  He is destroying this university.  Dvorak is an idiot and way out of her league. But if her vita is legally accurate, then that trumps the common practice.  Maybe we should have found out if her self-presentation was legally accurate BEFORE it fot to this point?  "

---

Don't ETHICS matter?  It isn't just about legality; it is about her ethics.  This person's responsibilities including making decisions about other people's job performance.  Therefore, her own cv should be clean. 

i am puzzled why some posts on this thread on SACS accreditation have disappeared.  what happened?

i think you're right.  sorry

I apologize for the multiple posts. I've been having a batch of "senior moments" & didn't realize they were going to the 2nd page of this thread.

Feel free to delete as many dupes as you wish, FS.

**wipes egg off face**

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
"I apologize for the multiple posts. I've been having a batch of "senior moments" & didn't realize they were going to the 2nd page of this thread. Feel free to delete as many dupes as you wish, FS. **wipes egg off face**"

---

I've done the same thing.    I won't wipe them--they aren't exact dupes.

That little number two on the bottom right corner has gotten me several times, too. 

The affidavit does not address the fact that from the vantage point of professionals vetting the Dvorak vita in Mississippi it was profoundly misleading. Even if it can be argued that it was technically correct because Kentucky's system is at variance with the rest of the country, something I do not believe is objectively true, the applicant had a moral and professional obligation to clarify the situation so that it did not mislead. She quite obviously failed in that obligation. This is simply dishonest, not a characteristic favored among applicants for high university positions.

An affidavit from a retired (and thus not accountable) Community College person is a sign of weakness. No matter how this is looked at technically, in practice you don't get tenure as a Professor in the University of Kentucky itself with community college credentials. This has been addressed definitively by your faculty senate in a rigorously reasoned report.

The affidavit poses little danger to Professors Stringer and Glamser.

Well, how 'bout all tenured faculty at JCJC put on their resumes they are tenured at the University of Mississippi? (Take note IHL board.)

If this has happened, it would be in an old Chronicle of Higher Education.