If things go badly . . .

Date: Apr 23, 2004

If things go badly . . .

Date: Apr 23, 2004

On this thread, I would also like to encourage people to boost letter writing. Letters to the editor, to the IHL, to the governor, to Shelby & co. Letters WORK, and they work from ANYBODY. They have already been effective in our fight... keep it up!

Date: Apr 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: PostHaste
"I know, it's unthinkable. But what about this situation is NOT unthinkable? So I want to bring this up Feel free to ignore it, or flame it. I'm wondering what if . . . Mssrs Stringer and Glamser bent an ethical rule or something in their zeal to get the lowdown on that lowdown Dvorak? And this comes out in the hearing? "

Don't Worry PH. I think it boils down to Dr. Thames's overblown pride and Dr.s Stringer and Glamser calling his bluff. Dr. Thames called them into his office on March 5th and 'offered' them the chance to retire early to 'avoid termination' and the associated 'mess'. Glamser and Stringer KNEW they had done NOTHING wrong, and they basically told him they were not going to retire. The unknown is scary, but we just have to have faith in the people who have proven themselves in the past to be worthy of our support. Thames & Dvorak or Stringer & Glamser?

Date: Apr 24, 2004

I share this concern. It seems as if all the eggs are in one basket (firing of two tenured faculty) rather than the ongoing and consistent behavior of this administration. I believe there needs to be more vocalization around the many instances poor decisions, heavy handed implementation of decisions and the general abuse of power that characterizes this administration.

Date: Apr 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: dismayed
"It seems as if all the eggs are in one basket (firing of two tenured faculty) rather than the ongoing and consistent behavior of this administration."

That's why it is so important that the people who can do what they need to do to call for financial audits and an investigation of EEOC compliance in administrative hires. I am afraid it is things that are in that realm, with outside investigative bodies calling the facts out as they find them, that might finally force IHL to clean up this mess they have allowed to occur. I have to hope that someone is working on those angles.

Date: Apr 24, 2004

My concern is a little different from the ones that are being voiced here.

I seriously doubt that G and S did anything improper, for reasons I've explained on other threads: they didn't need to, in order to impeach Dvorak's resume, and the charge that they did something improper is 100% predictable, coming from the sponsor of an administrator who lied on her resume.

My concern is rather that the Board will rule in G and S's favor after the hearing next week, but leave Thames in charge until his contract runs out. He seems to be so wired-in politically that failure to be upheld on firing Glamser and Stringer will not necessarily lead to his being fired (as it normally would in this kind of situation).

What's more, even if the Board does fire Thames, it's unlikely that they will fire the Dvoraks, Malone, Dana Thames, and other members of the cabal. Giving them the customary year to find another job means giving them a year to keep destroying the university.

So public pressure for investigations into hiring without proper job searches, and for audits of units where financial impropriety is suspected, is vital if the mess is to be cleaned up.

Otherwise what often happens, after a President is run out but the rest of the gang sticks around for a while, is that the new President proves reluctant to order investigations of malfeasance that happened before he or she ever arrived at the institution, for fear of bringing more bad publicity and riling still-entrenched adminstrators or their sponsors outside the institution.

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: PostHaste
"... I ask FireShelby to reprint that portion of the faculty senate "open letter" that specifies the 15 or 20 main failures of Shelby's term here, and that we all remember those and make an effort to reiterate those in our personal conversations and especially in any dealing with the media.
"

Otherside

The reasons below from Faculty Senate's Open Letter.

...Rather, the collapse of faculty confidence in your presidency reflects alarm about two-years of ill-conceived decisions and management practices, several of which we highlight here.

·Filling virtually all top administrative positions without faculty and staff input and without national searches that are commonplace at America’s best universities;

·Implementing an invasive technology policy that allows seizure and impoundment (for any reason!) of computers used in faculty offices;

·Implementing a massive college reorganization without any consultation with faculty and staff;

·Dismissing college deans in an exceedingly disrespectful manner;

·Thrusting an ill-conceived Faculty Activity Report (FAR) on faculty (though departments and colleges already had rigorous annual faculty performance reviews), then assuring one set of purposes for the FAR, but stating later that it would be used for an expanded set of purposes (for which it is poorly suited);

·Hiring a new lawyer at $140,000 to be "risk manager” when the University already had (and has) a full-time legal counsel;

·Dismissing a valued colleague who had been assured by the previous administration that he had tenure when he was appointed;

·Creating a separate university awards committee that undermines the long-standing and well-respected Faculty Senate awards committee (and without any prior conversation with the Faculty Senate);

·Releasing an ill-conceived drug and alcohol policy without input from faculty and staff (the policy was subsequently withdrawn because of legitimate concerns about specific areas of content);

·Reporting inflated enrollments to the Board of Trustees and then blaming one individual for the fiasco;

·Surprising members of the Board of Trustees by announcing that USM would establish a teaching hospital in Gulfport, then hiring an administrator to oversee the teaching hospital initiative shortly after the announcement;

·Giving “stealth raises” of more than eleven percent to selected administrators in the second semester of 2003 while all but a few faculty and staff received just two percent raises;

·Giving sizable salary increases to selected administrators and faculty members in January 2004 without following established Faculty Handbook processes;

·Removing abruptly the academic leadership from the Gulf Coast campus, leaving students, faculty, and staff in a state of uncertainty, as well as apprehensive that an imposed, highly centralized management approach will erode progress and the ability of the Coast Campus to serve constituents effectively;

·Deciding to close the USM Van Hook golf course without any input from faculty, staff, or the public;

·Sanctioning an investigation into the credentials of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development by the “risk manager,” a long-time close associate of this Vice President, rather than by University Counsel or some other party with professional distance from the Vice President;

·Initiating termination proceedings against two respected senior professors based on an “investigation” conducted by the same close associate to the Vice President for Research and Economic Development who had conducted the administration’s “inquiry” into the credentials of the Vice President;

·Using heavy-handed tactics in locking the two senior professors out of their offices and seizing at least one computer;

·Attacking, in personal and public ways, faculty and others who have raised legitimate questions about the practices of this administration.

·Creating an environment so negative that significant numbers of respected and experienced colleagues are choosing to leave the University.

Otherside

Date: Apr 24, 2004

It's ironic, but Thames is better served if the IHL does not terminate Frank and Gary. If they do, people will work all the harder against Thames, and even more faculty and staff will leave ASAP.

Date: Apr 24, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: PostHaste
"I know, it's unthinkable. But what about this situation is NOT unthinkable? So I want to bring this up Feel free to ignore it, or flame it. I'm wondering what if . . . Mssrs Stringer and Glamser bent an ethical rule or something in their zeal to get the lowdown on that lowdown Dvorak? And this comes out in the hearing

Along with the list of Thames misdeads, let's continue to remind people of the bottom line: that G&S were looking for the truth, even if one took a step too far in his quest (and I doubt this happened).

Let's stress the simple fact (known to all here but not stressed enough times in much public discourse): An obviously unqualified VP for Academic Affairs, hired along with her husband through nepotism, fudged her cv (not to mention claims of '200 presentations' as discussed on other threads).

Unfortunately, a long list may not be as effective in the general realm of p.r. as one simple statement of fact, at least not for casual, outside observers--I think most people often won't take the time to read a long list or inform themselves well, or will only read the first point. And it is general public opinion, often determined by first or general and not necessarily well-informed impressions, that puts pressure on the College Board, many alumni and others in the community, media, etc

For that reason, maybe we should stress the first in public statements if things go badly, and then immediately follow up with the list, noting that the faculty's problems with ST predate and go well beyond the AAUP report on Dvorak.

--Just a thought -- maybe I'm wrong, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Date: Apr 24, 2004

But I thought I'd try to compress the Faculty Senate points so they are easier to remember and list, because we want to get these thing before the press and public in simplest possible form so they will remember them. I'd appreciate any help and or correction if i've screwed up any of the point. Remember that we're tring to get the points into as few words as possible -- anyway. here's my attempt.

œ Hiring administrators without faculty and staff input or national searches;

œ Setting up an invasive technology policy;

œ Unilateral reorganization without faculty and staff input;

œ Firing deans without cause or process;

œ Lying about Faculty Activity Reportfs purpose and usage

œ Wasting $140,000 on "risk manager" because he doesnft like USM lawyer;

œ Firing a valued colleague assured by the previous administration of his tenure;

œ Creating a redundant awards committee to undermine Faculty Senate awards committee;

œ Designing a bad drug and alcohol policy without input from faculty and staff

œ Reporting inflated enrollments to the IHL Board and scapegoating an employee;

œ Unilaterally announcing a teaching hospital in Gulfport and hiring an administrator;

œ Giving "stealth raises" of more than 11 percent to selected administrators;

œ Giving raises to select inidividual in 2004 without following Faculty Handbook processes;

œ Removing academic leadership from the Gulf Coast campus;

œ Closing USM Van Hook golf course without input from faculty, staff or public;

œ Allowing long-time personal friend of Dvorak to ginvestigateh her credentials;

œ Trying to fire senior professors based on an "investigation" conducted by grisk managerh;

œ Locking senior professors out of their offices and seizing at least one computer;

œ Personally and publicly attacking those who have questioned the administration.

œ Creating a poisonous academic environment, causing many faculty to leave.

Date: Apr 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: I'm no writer
"But I thought I'd try to compress the Faculty Senate points so they are easier to remember and list, . . . "

No Writer:

Real nice job making these into bullets. I think you are right -- the Faculty Senate justifications are out there so now it is a good time to just punch the main ideas . . . .

Great job. I'm gonna download and put 'em on my door.

Date: Apr 24, 2004

well put - and my concern is this; despite what drs. glamser and stringer may have done (which, i hope and feel, is nothing significant), dr thames should have, by no means, created such a frightening environment for the rest of the faculty.