Is it possible that SFT fired G&S because ...

Date: Apr 17, 2004

Is it possible that SFT fired G&S because ...

Date: Apr 18, 2004

From the legends I've heard, he has a ferocious temper. I doubt there was as much strategy or forethought in the firing -- he just got mad, lost control and fired them. If there had been any strategy to it, he would have at least talked to Tim Hudson. (my theory). Now his minions are trying to save him from himself. This should show the IHL he is not fit to lead a horse to water.

Date: Apr 18, 2004

The out-of-control temper theory makes more sense to me as well.

Had Thames been thinking strategically, he would not have gone the route against two tenured professors that guarantees next to maximum publicity--namely, firing them. (The only way to draw more publicity would have been to assault them physically...)

Administrators who want to get rid of tenured professors usually work hard to keep everything inside the institution. Even if grievance proceedings should come into play and go against them, most likely all will stay contained, and there is far less danger to them that way.

Date: Apr 18, 2004

Once the hearing is over, I imagine that G & S will work out something with their attorney where the attorney will get a third of the money that the court awards them - or a settlement amount.

They might have to pay some upfront fees, and pay for copies of depositions etc, but with a really good attorney - who is sharp enough to see the historical ramifications of what is now taking place -- it is definitely a way for an attorney to carve out a "name" in the national arena and bring in future clients. Chaze has done that - I don't doubt Adelman will do the same.

Date: Apr 18, 2004

I'm sure you all have heard of our infamous "Ten Commandments" supreme court justice over here in Alabama. He is the fellow who snuck a 5000-pound monument to the ten commandments into the lobby of the state judiciary building after midnight, informing no other supreme court justices nor anyone else, but having the whole thing videotaped for future fund-raising. Inevitably some people filed a law suit, and nearly all legal observers firmly predicted that the judge would lose at every step of the process -- and he did. In fact, he was also eventually fired from his position as supreme court justice, even though the people who fired him are all basically on the same page with him religiously. (All of this will publicity will actually help him when he runs for governor, which seems to be his ultimate ambition anyway). Most of his supporters were from out-of-state, because even people in Alabama who favor such religious displays in public buildings were suspicious of the motives and methods of this judge. I personally lost any respect I had for him when I found out that he moved the rock into the building in the middle of the night, without even informing his fellow justices.

The relevance of all this to your mess at USM? The state of Alabama just agreed to pay a half million dollars to cover the legal fees of the attorneys for the plaintiffs -- just as everyone had predicted all along would happen. The judge got himself some good publicity for his future runs for public office, but he left the taxpayers of a cash-strapped state holding the bag.

Maybe in letters to the editors of MS newspapers, readers should be reminded that the people who are literally likely to pay for the recent actions of the USM administration are the taxpayers. People may support SFT in principle because they like the idea of "authority," but when they are informed that the state is likely to lose a big chunk of change as a result of what has happened, they may change their minds.

Date: Apr 18, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: USM Supporter
"I'm sure you all have heard of our infamous "Ten Commandments" supreme court justice over here in Alabama. He is the fellow who snuck a 5000-pound monument to the ten commandments into the lobby of the state judiciary building after midnight, informing no other supreme court justices nor anyone else, but having the whole thing videotaped for future fund-raising. Inevitably some people filed a law suit, and nearly all legal observers firmly predicted that the judge would lose at every step of the process -- and he did. In fact, he was also eventually fired from his position as supreme court justice, even though the people who fired him are all basically on the same page with him religiously. (All of this will publicity will actually help him when he runs for governor, which seems to be his ultimate ambition anyway). Most of his supporters were from out-of-state, because even people in Alabama who favor such religious displays in public buildings were suspicious of the motives and methods of this judge. I personally lost any respect I had for him when I found out that he moved the rock into the building in the middle of the night, without even informing his fellow justices. The relevance of all this to your mess at USM? The state of Alabama just agreed to pay a half million dollars to cover the legal fees of the attorneys for the plaintiffs -- just as everyone had predicted all along would happen. The judge got himself some good publicity for his future runs for public office, but he left the taxpayers of a cash-strapped state holding the bag. Maybe in letters to the editors of MS newspapers, readers should be reminded that the people who are literally likely to pay for the recent actions of the USM administration are the taxpayers. People may support SFT in principle because they like the idea of "authority," but when they are informed that the state is likely to lose a big chunk of change as a result of what has happened, they may change their minds."
good thought. Ironically, this is one of the least rational administrations we have seen lately. Shelby may be a scientist, but he is not running the university like a scientist. Seems like emotions rule decisions here . . . and it might cost the state a lot of money.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

My understanding is that the state will pay up to 2.5 million on any suits against the university.

The university itself will have cover any damages awarded personally against Shelby Thames. In other words, if someone sues the institution AND Shelby Thames, then the state will cover the institution up to 2.5 million, and the university will cover Shelby--the limit of liability in a suit against Shelby himself is unknown.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by:
"My understanding is that the state will pay up to 2.5 million on any suits against the university. The university itself will have cover any damages awarded personally against Shelby Thames. In other words, if someone sues the institution AND Shelby Thames, then the state will cover the institution up to 2.5 million, and the university will cover Shelby--the limit of liability in a suit against Shelby himself is unknown."

And this does NOT include legal fees that are being paid to lawyers representing USM AND Shelby Thames.

Additionally, in a civil suit, the judge can order the state and the university to fork over moolah to the plaintiff's attorneys, to cover those legal fees.

So, the attorneys' pay checks will also be very substantial. Pile that on top of the millions to be awarded in the various suits against Shelby and the uni right now--any black-column figures for which he claims responsibility will be eaten up by litigation and attorney fees--and USM will find itself deeper in the red than at any point in its recent history.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by:
" And this does NOT include legal fees that are being paid to lawyers representing USM AND Shelby Thames. Additionally, in a civil suit, the judge can order the state and the university to fork over moolah to the plaintiff's attorneys, to cover those legal fees. So, the attorneys' pay checks will also be very substantial. Pile that on top of the millions to be awarded in the various suits against Shelby and the uni right now--any black-column figures for which he claims responsibility will be eaten up by litigation and attorney fees--and USM will find itself deeper in the red than at any point in its recent history. "

And let me add ONE more thing

Shelby and Co. and USM are currently litigants in 6, yes SIX, current lawsuits--possibly more after the NCAA infractions see daylight.

Date: Apr 18, 2004

So is there sufficient "economic development" to cover all of these lawsuits, Dvorak? We may need to bulldoze more university land to cover the costs.

Date: Apr 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: usmstudent
"So is there sufficient "economic development" to cover all of these lawsuits, Dvorak?"

EXCELLENT question! Someone needs to write to the MS papers to make this kind of point. Maybe I will do it.