I am utterly appalled at the debacle in the foreign language department.  Dr. Powell is a pearl, a genius at administration who has managed a master's program in teaching languages for most of the last 12 years. Under his leadership this program has grown from 10 to around 100 practicing and pre-service language teachers a year (bringing in tuition dollars! talk about economic development!) who study in Hattiesburg, Mexico, and Spain and who then go back to their home schools all across the U.S. to teach Spanish, French and English as a Second Language.  It is an enormous reponsibility and he has directed it ceaslessly summer after summer, when there are the greatest number of students, and year after year with no pay raise, consideration or respect.  The fact that he was simply willing to be chair of the department (a thankless job) makes the man an angel in my book. Why in the world wouldn't the current administration want him in their corner? 

Of course Dr. Powell is the model of substance in academics and integrity in leadership. Perhaps this has done him in.

 

A similar situation happened in the English Dept. last year.  Here's what I heard (most of this substantiated, some speculation--notes for you TRUTH watchers out there!):

When Dr. Michael Salda decided to step down from the very thankless task of chair, the faculty voted to put forth Dr. Noel Polk's name as chair.  But SFT shot it down since Dr. Polk had been an outspoken critic of SFT.  So, the dept. said, "Fine, you pick a chair."  SFT then TOLD Maureen Ryan, then Asst. Provost of Institutional Planning or something like that (responsible for the SACS accreditation process) that in addition to her duties as Asst. Provost, she would now also be chair of English.  She thought about this for a few weeks (maybe less), and then told him that without additional $$ and support (of which he offered NONE!) that she would rather return to the faculty without being Asst. Provost OR chair, thank you very much.  At that point, Angela Ball (bless her!) stepped in as chair.  And I say good for Maureen for sticking up for herself.

I hope that this issue can be resolved for the FL dept. soon.  What a mess....   

Thanks, SheSays!

Let me add that I posted this just as it came through my email, with the exception that I removed the name of the person who provided the info about the MBA program.

I posted to begin conversation on the three topics.  I can't guarantee that it's the gospel, only that this is what is being discussed.

I have already received an email on the third entry that someone is going to ask questions about it.  That's great.  If anyone can clarify, confirm, or dispute the three entries above, feel free to post.

FS

Another clarification:

Admins in #3 refers to administrative assistants--departmental secretaries.

One of the problems CBED is apparently having is getting the graduate programs in Econ Dev etc. to use GMAT scores instead of GRE scores.  Since most in business don't use GREs, ED and others want to continue because it's harder for business types to scale them properly (at least for a while --- learning curve etc.).  Another thing.  SFT needs to sham Int Deve PhD program to maintain his precious Carnegie whatever status.

 

 

Copied this from the Real Issues thread that was active on Sunday - seems to hit once again on the economic development department issues and problems.  Remember it was in response to a poster who tried to frame questions that he/she thought Roy Klum would ask.

Let me start with a couple of up-front caveats.  I am always leery of building logical arguments on false premises. Although I would like to think that many of the questions you raise are too ludicrous to argue, I have read a great deal of the material on the IHL website.  From that reading, I believe that many people, including some board members, might ask questions the way that you have.  So, for caveat #1, I am going to assume that each question's premise is legitimate.  Next, Economic Development at the University of Southern Mississippi is housed in the College of Business (now CBED).  Business is my background and so that is the vantage point from which I will discuss all points.  There are people from the arts, sciences, education/psychology, and health who are better able to discuss their perspectives.  Although economic development is not always (or even often) coupled with business, the joining can make sense.  Entrepreneurship is starting businesses.  Management is operating business.  International development is the globalization of businesses.  So, caveat #2 is that my perspective is limited in scope to that of a business person.  Finally, a discussion of these issues cannot be conducted in isolation of the complete disarray of the university at this time.  Whatever might have prompted the IHL to have put Shelby Thames in charge of USM two years ago, whatever lofty goals President Thames might have had when he took over the presidency, and whatever confidence some of us might have had in his leadership at the beginning are things that are no longer relevant.  Caveat #3 is that, from my perspective, any future scenario of success at USM cannot include the current administrative team in the dome.

1) This state can’t support so many institutions of higher learning (Univ.s and C. Colleges) so institutions must find their own sources of funds.

The fact that Mississippi has such a regressive tax system is a major cause of public education in the state being so underfunded but that is not a discussion for this time.  In addition to state funding, there are other sources of funding, which include tuition, philanthropy, public programs, and grants.  To increase tuition revenue, without increasing tuition and without drawing students from the other two universities, USM must increase its enrollment from a new student pool.  Whether or not those two restrictions are legitimate are not part of this discussion.  At both the undergraduate and graduate levels, the new student pool can consist of out-of-state students, non-traditional students, displaced workers, junior status transfers from community colleges, executives, undecided students, and international students.  One of the ways that the university has been trying to increase enrollment (and no, I'm not going to go THERE) is to COMPETE with the community colleges rather than to complement them (see point #2).  Another way is to lower admission standards.  Neither of these has any long term benefit to USM or to the University system.  Regarding philanthropy, friends give and alumni give back because they have been successful and credit USM in some way for their success or because they believe in a mission/individual/program/team or because they want to get something in return. It is critically important not to give management rights to a university in exchange for donations.  Sometimes it's better to say no to the gifts with strings and work instead on developing the quality that inspires loyalty, pride and true philanthropic giving.  Revenue from events has a synergistic benefit to the university.  Consulting, conferences, seminars, workshops can all act to increase the university's image and visibility.  Grants are fine and occasionally appropriate but the model of the hard science grant is not one that fits other disciplines.  To the extent that chasing grant money detracts from a faculty member's scholarly research, teaching, and university service, it diminishes the quality of the academic program that he or she serves.

2) The main purpose of universities in the state must be to provide a skilled labor force for economic development in order to solve the financial problems.

One of the things that Mississippi does well in education is workforce training at the community college level.  Recruiting freshman students, destined for community college, to USM instead has the doubly negative effect of lowering average incoming ACT scores and providing the students a disservice because the community college is better equipped to meet their workforce training needs.  At the university level, workforce training would be more efficiently delivered to students interested in human resource management or corporate training.  In order to "solve the financial problems" - sounds like we need critical thinkers with solid business education.

3) If students can get an “education” along the way of being “trained” great, but that is not necessary for the present needs of this state.

An MBA is much more of a practitioner's degree than an undergraduate degree in business.  Let's educate them broadly at the undergraduate level and allow them to specialize at the master's level.   For any pure training, they need to be at the community colleges.

4) Major funds can only be brought to the University by disciplines that supply a “product” or “service” to industry.

Well, obviously this is one that business people embrace at first glance perhaps more so than folks in the other disciplines.  I am offended by the use of the term "customers" for students (I don't much like them being called "possessions" either.)  I would rather use the term "raw materials" to which a university can bring value-added education to create a "product" of high quality.  In doing this, we certainly provide a "service" to industry.  A recent speaker at the USM CBED said something along the lines of "Human Resources are an organization's greatest, and only sustainable, competitive advantage".

5) Thus major support must be directed to science, engineering and technologies.

I'm not sure that I understand the link to this conclusion but, given caveat #1 that I agreed to up-front, I'll work with it.  High technology growth companies offer economic incentives and opportunity.  Often scientists and engineers who start out at higher salaries in entry-level positions do not move up as fast in management as their business counterparts.  They are often pigeon-holed in their technical positions.  Many who do move into administration without management training often are ill-prepared as leaders (hmm, let me try to think of an example...) This has created an incrreased market demand for MBAs.

6) Arts and Letters must be reduced to supply the capital. (Enough leaders can be supplied the state by U. of Miss and Miss. State U.)

The A&L people have been making great arguments for themselves already.  Let me add two things.  First, pockets of excellence build the reputation of a university.  USM has had some exceptional "pockets of excellence" that raise the prestige and visibility of the overall university.  Every college benefits from the successes of another.  Second,without getting into any of the resource allocation issues and turf battles that this might spark, joint programs that allow majors in the arts (or any of the other colleges, for that matter) combined with a minor in business or a 3/2 program resulting in a bachelor of arts (or B.S.) and an MBA make for a competitive graduate on the job market.

7) The freedom to make such “creative” moves require the removal of the antiquated institution of tenure.

People far more eloquent than I have made very strong arguments about the importance of tenure.  I'll add to the case with a different slant.  USM does not need to recreate the proverbial wheel when it comes to being "creative", becoming more "efficient", or increasing its stature.  There are good schools with "best practices" that can be mimicked.  There are accrediting agencies already in place that develop a framework for doing the right thing.  When you're a top school, perhaps you can call the shots for what stands for quality.  When you're not, it is better to pay attention to what the better schools have done.  USM cannot be "world class" without its governing accreditations and it cannot be help the state of Mississippi in the long-term with a low-quality approach.  Without tenure, there will be no commitment to either a long-term or to quality.

 

 

Give us a break!  Malone isn't qualified to be a professor or a department chair and now you've got him as Associate Dean?  Doty will choose his own Associate Dean and word is that he is very happy with Dr. Niroomand.  Interesting red herring but not happening!  Malone had better hope that one of his business venture projects works out because he has no future in an academic role.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Sphere
"Give us a break!  Malone isn't qualified to be a professor or a department chair and now you've got him as Associate Dean?  Doty will choose his own Associate Dean and word is that he is very happy with Dr. Niroomand.  Interesting red herring but not happening!  Malone had better hope that one of his business venture projects works out because he has no future in an academic role."

---

Sphere, did I say Malone was qualified to be associate dean?  Of course not, he's not even qualified to be a department chair.  Guess what?  He is a department chair, and you know what sphere, he's also the Chief Operating Officer of USM Gulf Coast.  Now, do you still think it beyond the pale that he could be named Associate Dean of CBED?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Sphere
" Although you are suggesting the Peter Principle in action - Malone's 4th or 5th job change at USM in less than 18 months, I do think it is "beyond the pale".  Malone is ultimately a Thames/Dvorak/Hudson flunkie in all this...annoying but relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.  I still think it's a red herring.  "

---

Correction:  instead of job changes, Malone is doing a job snowball--accumulating jobs instead of changing them.  After what happened to Frank and Gary, nothing seems to be "beyond the pale" for SFT.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: shesays
"I am utterly appalled at the debacle in the foreign language department.  Dr. Powell is a pearl, a genius at administration who has managed a master's program in teaching languages for most of the last 12 years. Under his leadership this program has grown from 10 to around 100 practicing and pre-service language teachers a year (bringing in tuition dollars! talk about economic development!) who study in Hattiesburg, Mexico, and Spain and who then go back to their home schools all across the U.S. to teach Spanish, French and English as a Second Language.  It is an enormous reponsibility and he has directed it ceaslessly summer after summer, when there are the greatest number of students, and year after year with no pay raise, consideration or respect.  The fact that he was simply willing to be chair of the department (a thankless job) makes the man an angel in my book. Why in the world wouldn't the current administration want him in their corner?  Of course Dr. Powell is the model of substance in academics and integrity in leadership. Perhaps this has done him in.  "

---

Is this the person who is head of the Graduate Council?  What was the timing of the discontinued search for a dept chair and the elimination of that position? 

Thank you, Shesays, for a thoughtful response.  This website is so valuable - FS you are a saint!  Here are some more interesting links to this story

Faculty Graduate Council is currently investigating the credentials of individuals in Economic Development to assess their qualifications to teach in the College of Business and Economic Development's graduate programs.  The investigation by this committee is believed to be what led to the "sanitization" of the Economic Development PhD Program website where, within a matter of weeks, Angie Dvorak's faculty title changed from "Associate Professor" to "Adjunct" to a listing of her as administrator only.  The timing was certainly concurrent.  I believe that Dr. Bill Powell is the lead person in this investigation.  In addition, it is rumored that Bill Powell and Tim Hudson do not get along and that Tim Hudson does not want Bill Powell to be Department Chair.  Dean Pood is in a difficult position - untenured, under pressure from his Provost...

Regarding the nonsense that the incoming deans had to approve new department chairs...how then, does that explain Ken Malone, who with no business degrees and no academic management or faculty experience, was named Department Chair of Economic Development by Angie Dvorak last summer soon before the arrival of Dean Doty?  Dr. Shelby Thames' former Polymer Science graduate student was presented to Doty and the entire College of Business and Economic Development as a "done deal".

Do people see why shared governance, freedom of speech, and tenure are so important?  The decisions that are surreptitiously being made by the top administrators of this university are an attempt to dismantle what many fine people have put together.  Transparent decision making processes are the only way to allow for disagreement, debate, and ultimate consensus building in any attempt to rebuild this unversity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: shesays
" Dr. Bill Powell is on the Graduate Council.  I don't know if he is the head. When Sanchez said he was stepping down in 2002 the department gave names to then dean of Liberal Arts Terry Harper. At that time the dept. was told, due to budgetary constraints, it would have to choose an insider. The majority voted for Bill Powell but with the collapse of colleges and major changes in 2003, the dept. was then told by Covosts Grimes and Hudson that an outside search for chair would have to be done the following year since Powell was unacceptable. They claimed they didn't want to appoint someone without consulting the new in-coming dean. They also stated that the choice of Powell had to be legitimized by an outside search.  However, this was NOT the case for English or for Sociology and Anthropology which now both have new inside chairs with no external search. And this was not the case for either one of the covosts who were both insiders. In DFLL an outside search was conducted this year with a 5-person chair search committee in place. 3 people were appointed by Dean Pood and 2 were appointed by the dept. The dean appointed Frank Kuhn from theater (who's now leaving USM) to head the search along with Sanchez and Escobar (who both got raises this year, btw). The dept. named Odom and Clark (they were not given raises).  6 months go by and the committee and dept. come up with 2 finalists to invite to campus after having conducted 5 phone interviews.  This past March Pood says 2 finalists are not enough.  He also asked to look at the candidate dossiers himself and then gave them to 2 profs outside the dept. and asked them if they thought the candidate pool had sufficiently strong candidates.  These 2 mysterious, outside people told Pood that the DFLL chair candidate pool had at least 5 strong possibilities. He refused to tell the dept. who those names were, however. (I'm not sure outsiders know how to judge what's good for foreign languages but OK... ) so Pood then said he wanted at least 4 finalists, even though the COEP dean search only had 2 finalists who came to campus, and Pood headed that search and an insider was chosen as Dean (once again!)  The DFLL chair committee was in the midst of trying to come up with 4 finalists when the search was stopped.  Becky Woodrick in AAEO, in consultation with Pood, halted the search.  No one is talking.  It is a big mystery. And in the end it doesn't matter. This wasn't going to have a happy ending. My feeling is that DFLL is being branded as a bunch of uncooperative malcontents which couldn't be further from the truth.  Many new hires in the past decade have revitalized the dept. The majority are hard-working, good people who value a democratic process in choosing a chair, transparency in all matters that deal with the dept. as a whole, and, above all, shared governance. "

---