What can the Board do?

Date: Apr 26, 2004

What can the Board do?

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"In other words, if Roy Klumb asked for your advice to get out of this mess, what would you advise?"

In his case, I'd advise him to resign from the board immediately. He would then be out of this mess & a major impediment to its successful resolution would be removed.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"

In his case, I'd advise him to resign from the board immediately. He would then be out of this mess & a major impediment to its successful resolution would be removed.

"

Now Invictus, don't forget the "save face" part of the question. Or is that impossible? If so they may as well leave Thames in office.

Otherside

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
if Roy Klumb asked for your advice to get out of this mess, what would you advise? Otherside "

In order for Roy Klumb to possibly save face, he needs to keep his mouth shut and let another Board member speak for the IHL.

He needs to attend Anger Managment classes with Angie and Shelby as well.

It might do wonders for the man

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Otherside
"Question: What can the IHL Board do to solve this situation? Now really think about the position they are now in and help them. They know what YOU would like them to do with the president. But who would be interim president? How can everyone (or almost everyone) save face? What about their supporters? How do they explain to (satisfy) them? (Remember Board members have virtually no academic experience.) In other words, if Roy Klumb asked for your advice to get out of this mess, what would you advise? Otherside "

Otherside, this is going to sound ugly so I will apologize in advance, but do you ever read the other threads and responses you get or do you just pose more questions? We have been discussing this very thing, you've even been given some credit for sparking a new kind of discussion but you never respond, you just ask more questions that you start on new threads. I am not convinced that you're just a different kind of more sophisticated troll who has us spinning wheels. Go back and read, comment, and then maybe we'll write some more. Meanwhile, I'm going to boycott your posts and encourage others to do the same.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

The right thing?

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Frustratedwithyou
"
Otherside, this is going to sound ugly so I will apologize in advance, but do you ever read the other threads and responses you get or do you just pose more questions? We have been discussing this very thing, you've even been given some credit for sparking a new kind of discussion but you never respond, you just ask more questions that you start on new threads. I am not convinced that you're just a different kind of more sophisticated troll who has us spinning wheels. Go back and read, comment, and then maybe we'll write some more. Meanwhile, I'm going to boycott your posts and encourage others to do the same."

Sorry Frustrated. I don't read ALL of the threads.
Just a few I have time for when I'm not working. I didn't know this was discussed already. The "Real Issues" thread I started got snowed under with too many issues. I haven't had the time to continue that one. But I will take your suggestion and go looking for a thread that addresses the questions raised here. (Can you give me a hint?) Also I don't have the answers, so I ask to be informed of the possibilities and that is why I sometimes don't have a response. I don't believe in BSing if I don't know.

Otherside

Date: Apr 26, 2004

Possible choices for interim would be Lucas, Paul, or Hudson. Reinstating the faculty members would be a first step toward healing.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

Here are some thoughts:

(1) return SFT to his faculty position;

(2) bring the former President out of retirement;

(3) give Joe Paul (whom everyone seems to admire) some enhanced and very visible responsibilities during the search for a new president;

(4) make the point that the IHL has tried to be supportive of SFT but that he has forfeited their trust;

(5) emphasize that the crucial thing right now -- for the IHL, USM, USM students and faculty, and the state -- is to restore the reputation of the university, and that this can best be done by removing SFT as president;

(6) make a public and very specific commitment to address the concerns of the faculty senate;

(7) make a public and specific commitment to ensure that the new search is conducted well.

Believe me, there will be a much greater loss of face for the whole state if a clean break is NOT made. If a clean, sudden break IS made, the reputation of Mississippi can be repaired while you have the attention of the nation. In a few weeks, no one will be paying attention any longer outside the state (unless the hearings produce some new injustice).

By the way, if any supporters of Ole Miss and MSU are enjoying what is happening at USM, they are making a big mistake. The reputation of the whole state has been tarnished, and it will be to EVERYONE'S advantage if this mess is cleaned up quickly and very publicly. The whole state has taken a very big black eye over this thing; the governor and IHL can step in as the heroes if they are smart enough to do so.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"Possible choices for interim would be Lucas, Paul, or Hudson. Reinstating the faculty members would be a first step toward healing."

No question about the reinstatement of the faculty, I assumed that would occur. My concern is how they can get rid of Thames. I read on this board that some say that Hudson is not acceptable for interim and is part of the problem. I don't think Paul is qualified. Lucas would be the choice if he would do it AGAIN. I have no idea if that is even an option with him and was one reason I asked. I have no idea how the Board can save face and fear that will prevent their action on Thames.

Otherside

Date: Apr 26, 2004

8) Make a clear public statement that they support tenure and academic freedom in Mississippi institutions of higher education. (I can dream, can't I?)

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"8) Make a clear public statement that they support tenure and academic freedom in Mississippi institutions of higher education. (I can dream, can't I?)"

Good for you footsoldier! Point number 8 is key.

I think Paul is qualified on an interim basis. Far more qualified than Moore. Hudson is doable in a pinch -- but only if it is clear he is a transitional figure and will not be acceptable in the long run. The good thing is that I think we can look forward to Hudson getting rid of Dvorak, and if Dvorak #1 falls then #2 will follow . . . . as will Hanbury.

Doubt that Lucas would come back -- he has done his time. The other option is to bring in spmeone who knows the University on aninterim basis whether or not they might throw a hat in the rung later . . . I have heard that someone who is presently at Georgia Tech is not happy there . . . .

You guys, we need to be firm on this -- I think it may come down to showing up on the Board's doorstep at their next meeting after the hearing and being very visible and very insistent. If we jam the MPB building with several hundred people it can create a lot of pressure on them -- and in this the new board members canbe advantageous for us. They do not know the situation. We need to give Newton and McKee and the other couple of sysmpathetic members some help . . . .

I am quite sure we can expect something pretty serious to come down from Faculty Senate if therse hearings go as strongly for Glamser and Stringer as we hope. We can also hope that Grad Council and Academic Council will issue their own statements.

Students need to insist that the SGA finally take a stand post hearing.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Here are some thoughts:
(1) return SFT to his faculty position;
(2) bring the former President out of retirement;
(3) give Joe Paul (whom everyone seems to admire) some enhanced and very visible responsibilities during the search for a new president;
(4) make the point that the IHL has tried to be supportive of SFT but that he has forfeited their trust;
(5) emphasize that the crucial thing right now -- for the IHL, USM, USM students and faculty, and the state -- is to restore the reputation of the university, and that this can best be done by removing SFT as president;
(6) make a public and very specific commitment to address the concerns of the faculty senate;
(7) make a public and specific commitment to ensure that the new search is conducted well.
Believe me, there will be a much greater loss of face for the whole state if a clean break is NOT made. If a clean, sudden break IS made, the reputation of Mississippi can be repaired while you have the attention of the nation. In a few weeks, no one will be paying attention any longer outside the state (unless the hearings produce some new injustice).
By the way, if any supporters of Ole Miss and MSU are enjoying what is happening at USM, they are making a big mistake. The reputation of the whole state has been tarnished, and it will be to EVERYONE'S advantage if this mess is cleaned up quickly and very publicly. The whole state has taken a very big black eye over this thing; the governor and IHL can step in as the heroes if they are smart enough to do so."

USM Sympathizer make the points I was looking for.
However, a few of the steps seem a stretch for me.

"(4) make the point that the IHL has tried to be supportive of SFT but that he has forfeited their trust;"

My fear is that Thames WAS/IS doing exactly what the Board wants i.e., determine if tenure can be removed or weakened enough for even more major changes to the University.

(5) emphasize that the crucial thing right now -- for the IHL, USM, USM students and faculty, and the state -- is to restore the reputation of the university, and that this can best be done by removing SFT as president;

This would be ideal, but (in my mind) that assumes IHL has a vision of "The University" similar to an academic. Their actions indicate they have a corporate model and no understanding of the damage being done. I hope I'm wrong.

(6) make a public and very specific commitment to address the concerns of the faculty senate;

That would really be a major reversal of their position supporting presidents at all costs.

Thanks for your positive views. It gives me hope.

Otherside

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"
Good for you footsoldier! Point number 8 is key.
I think Paul is qualified on an interim basis. Far more qualified than Moore. Hudson is doable in a pinch -- but only if it is clear he is a transitional figure and will not be acceptable in the long run. The good thing is that I think we can look forward to Hudson getting rid of Dvorak, and if Dvorak #1 falls then #2 will follow . . . . as will Hanbury.
Doubt that Lucas would come back -- he has done his time. The other option is to bring in spmeone who knows the University on aninterim basis whether or not they might throw a hat in the rung later . . . I have heard that someone who is presently at Georgia Tech is not happy there . . . ....
"

Present Professor,
I never would consider Moore an option and agree Paul would be much better of those two. From the talk here, I had the impression people thought Hudson wouldn't take interim unless he could run for the permanent position. The possibility at Ga. Tech. would be welcome. As Foot Soldier says "I can dream, can't I?"

If these are real possibilities then the major problem for IHL will be "saving face".

Otherside

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" The possibility at Ga. Tech. would be welcome. "

Are you talking about Andy Griffith? He would be wonderful. Or Don Cotten (I can dream, can't I?).

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm
"Are you talking about Andy Griffith? He would be wonderful. Or Don Cotten (I can dream, can't I?). "

Yes, I assumed that was who Present Professor was refering to as "not happy..." In my original post I was thinking of Andy or Don as noninterim possibilities. Either would be wonderful!!

Otherside

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm
"Are you talking about Andy Griffith? He would be wonderful. Or Don Cotten (I can dream, can't I?). "

That would be Anselm Clyde Griffin III -- the Ph.d and not the caretaker of Barney Phyfe . . .

Don would be excellent also -- would love to see him again . . . I suspect there might be one or two other names we either don;t know about or aren't considering . . . .

Hudson could do worse for his career than take an interim Presidency and prove that he can run a major institution . . . but if he chooses to walk away then we only have further confirmation of what he really cares about.

I agree -- not acceptable for the permanent position. He is lucky to be the best of the two alternatives (Shelby/No Shelby). He should count his cookies and take them while he can.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
(4) make the point that the IHL has tried to be supportive of SFT but that he has forfeited their trust; (5) emphasize that the crucial thing right now -- for the IHL, USM, USM students and faculty, and the state -- is to restore the reputation of the university, and that this can best be done by removing SFT as president

If I am understanding Ricki Garrett's quote from WDAM correctly, it sounds like the IHL is finally coming around to addressing the concerns from the faculty no-confidence vote. Combine that with the overwhelming influx of mail that they have been receiving, I feel optimistic that if people keep writing to the IHL board expressing concerns about keeping SFT as president after the hearings they will see that they have no choice but to let him go. They are feeling the pressure, we just need to keep writing and letting them know that we are VERY concerned.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: wary undergrad
"If I am understanding Ricki Garrett's quote from WDAM correctly, it sounds like the IHL is finally coming around to addressing the concerns from the faculty no-confidence vote. Combine that with the overwhelming influx of mail that they have been receiving, I feel optimistic that if people keep writing to the IHL board expressing concerns about keeping SFT as president after the hearings they will see that they have no choice but to let him go. They are feeling the pressure, we just need to keep writing and letting them know that we are VERY concerned. "

The problem is that the majority of the IHL board wants to see Southern Miss fail. They are the real enemy in all of this mess.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

Paste from the Nepotism thread:

"I think that the bigger issue is what the Board will do if its members are finally convinced that the Thames presidency is irreparably damaged. Take Otherside's approach for a minute and look at it from the Board's perspective (if they buy into a regime change)..Thames is a problem, Dvoraks are a problem, Hanbury is a problem, Lassen's a graduate student, Hudson's dishonest, Moore is not competent, Paul's already in the right job, Mader has reached her zenith... They appear to have no replacement options. This is likely to be their biggest dilemma right now. Everyone is correct in talking about national searches to fill these top slots but, meanwhile, the university has to operate.

We can't expect the Board, especially this board reluctant to make operational decisions, to remove Shelby and not have a succession plan in place. One can only sincerely hope that Aubrey Lucas is in discussion with senior faculty now, preparing an interim cabinet that can be presented to the Board as an option. There is a great deal of weight to be thrown if the right candidate for interim would ask for some help. The issue of Aubrey's daughter muddies the water a little but it's hard to see how he could not be an effective healing ambassador for a year while the university conducts a national search."

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Crystalball
"Paste from the Nepotism thread:
"I think that the bigger issue is what the Board will do if its members are finally convinced that the Thames presidency is irreparably damaged. Take Otherside's approach for a minute and look at it from the Board's perspective (if they buy into a regime change)..Thames is a problem, Dvoraks are a problem, Hanbury is a problem, Lassen's a graduate student, Hudson's dishonest, Moore is not competent, Paul's already in the right job, Mader has reached her zenith... They appear to have no replacement options. This is likely to be their biggest dilemma right now. Everyone is correct in talking about national searches to fill these top slots but, meanwhile, the university has to operate.
We can't expect the Board, especially this board reluctant to make operational decisions, to remove Shelby and not have a succession plan in place. One can only sincerely hope that Aubrey Lucas is in discussion with senior faculty now, preparing an interim cabinet that can be presented to the Board as an option. There is a great deal of weight to be thrown if the right candidate for interim would ask for some help. The issue of Aubrey's daughter muddies the water a little but it's hard to see how he could not be an effective healing ambassador for a year while the university conducts a national search."
"

Thanks Crystalball. I don't remember seeing this before. This is a good summary of IHL's situation, but I wonder if Lucas is willing to do it AGAIN.

Otherside

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: GIGO
"The problem is that the majority of the IHL board wants to see Southern Miss fail. They are the real enemy in all of this mess."

Well GIGO . . . . welcome back . . .

The odds might be changing. I'd say that Nicholson isn't an enemy of Southern Miss -- but he has his own view of its utility via a vis and state and this region. But he is rotating off.

Colbert: not a friend but gone.

Griffis: not a friend but gone.

Garret is a loss -- she's come a long way.

But all the above folks all go.

I think of the remaining, Newton is our champion.

Klumb: definitely an enemy, but weakened without Colbert, Griffis and Nicholson.

Ross isn't a friend.

Crawford: can't tell

Davidson: can't tell

Neely; MaGee, and Whitten are possible allies for Newton.

the new class: hard to tell. But they are new, and so at least for the moment may succumb to enough pressure exerted by the remaining members of the Board.

I think it'll break down like this:

Votes for Shelby: Klumb and Ross (possibly either Davidson or Crawford but not both). From 2-3 votes

Votes against: Newton, McGee, Neely, and Whitten --4 votes

Crawford or Davidson and the new group: I think they represent five swing votes.

I think this is doable . . .

Date: Apr 26, 2004

A major problem is many of the senior faculty and administrators have left or been run off. All the deans are new and untested. Many highly respected faculty have retired. Options are severely limited because of Thames'leadership style.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

Or do it without strings related to his daughter...

The point is that it MUST be someone from outside the current dome group yet someone familiar with the university and able to quickly assemble an interim team. Aubrey's the most obvious choice - doesn't mean that there aren't others.

This is one of the problems with the reorganization - it cut the heart out of an infrastructure that allowed for planned succession.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"A major problem is many of the senior faculty and administrators have left or been run off. All the deans are new and untested. Many highly respected faculty have retired. Options are severely limited because of Thames'leadership style."

Thame's leadership style was calculated to strip out the old hands, the people with long memories not only of his past, but of the way a university should be run. He replaced older, stronger people who had a lot of on the ground contact with faculty and staff with people who are new and owe everything to him. He created a cult of loyalty that he constantly tested -- look how many people he pressured to show up for all of his press conferecnes defending himself.

The incompetence we get from these people is because the first quality Thames wants is loyalty. Competence is secondary -- since he clearly believes that all competence derives from him. So we get underqualified, mediocre folks inthe place of the Andy Griffins and the Don Cottons and the list could go on . . .

Not that these folks were all perfect.

But they were way better than this crew.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" Thanks Crystalball. I don't remember seeing this before. This is a good summary of IHL's situation, but I wonder if Lucas is willing to do it AGAIN. Otherside"

I sould have pasted your comment before my response - there were several other posts in between and it didn't make sense, sorry.

Or do it without strings related to his daughter...

The point is that it MUST be someone from outside the current dome group yet someone familiar with the university and able to quickly assemble an interim team. Aubrey's the most obvious choice - doesn't mean that there aren't others.

This is one of the problems with the reorganization - it cut the heart out of an infrastructure that allowed for planned succession.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"My fear is that Thames WAS/IS doing exactly what the Board wants i.e., determine if tenure can be removed or weakened enough for even more major changes to the University."

We do know from one of his published rants that this is what Roy Klumb wants. Whether this actually represents the consensus of the Board is another question. Another question is whether the goal is abolition of tenure at selected state universities. I certainly don't see them eliminating tenure at Ole Miss or State.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" Well GIGO . . . . welcome back . . . The odds might be changing. I'd say that Nicholson isn't an enemy of Southern Miss -- but he has his own view of its utility via a vis and state and this region. But he is rotating off. Colbert: not a friend but gone. Griffis: not a friend but gone. Garret is a loss -- she's come a long way. But all the above folks all go. I think of the remaining, Newton is our champion. Klumb: definitely an enemy, but weakened without Colbert, Griffis and Nicholson. Ross isn't a friend. Crawford: can't tell Davidson: can't tell Neely; MaGee, and Whitten are possible allies for Newton. the new class: hard to tell. But they are new, and so at least for the moment may succumb to enough pressure exerted by the remaining members of the Board. I think it'll break down like this: Votes for Shelby: Klumb and Ross (possibly either Davidson or Crawford but not both). From 2-3 votes Votes against: Newton, McGee, Neely, and Whitten --4 votes Crawford or Davidson and the new group: I think they represent five swing votes. I think this is doable . . . "

I hope you are correct but have my doubts. We shall see.

Date: Apr 26, 2004

I am not sure at all that Robinson, the new USM one, will be a swing vote.

I think she is staunchly behind Thames, no matter what he does or how he does it. I think this was made plain as day in her public comments.

I doubt she will shift enough to vote NO.

Sorry.............

Date: Apr 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Greedy
"I am not sure at all that Robinson, the new USM one, will be a swing vote. I think she is staunchly behind Thames, no matter what he does or how he does it. I think this was made plain as day in her public comments. I doubt she will shift enough to vote NO. Sorry............."

Maybe . . . my early reaction was that she is certainly parroting the "university as opportunity for profit" line . . . but that could be early igorance as well . . . . Barbour and Thames do not see eye to eye . . . I think it is just as possible that Robinson, as a newcomer without much knowlege of the internal workings of the Board, will either cave in with whoever looks like the winner or abstain . . . you can bet there is some serious lobbying going on within the Board right now. I think we have to hope that there is some gender sensibility going on here as well . . . these are all pretty strong women but what i saw at the last Board meeting I attended was the "boy's" circle (Shelby, Klum, etc.) who were all very backslapping "pals" --- and the rest of the Board who were on the outside. I don't think any of the women on the Board are comfortable with the good ol'boy style that Shelby represents -- and believe me when you put all the University Presidents into the mix it is really a man's club and feels like one -- lots of testosterone.

I think this mix of personalities is as volatile as the ideological issues on the Board right now. There are four women on the Board -- if the can unite now and deliver a powerful statement that ousts the good ol' boy candidate they can wrestle a measure of power from Klumb's cronies. I think that might be why Garret is speaking up right now . . .

Whitten is a lawyer and she is very sharp, very legalistic and detail oriented. I think she insists on dotted i's and crossed t's and isn't swayed by the overheated rhetoric of Klumb, who makes her flinch in embarrassment. I don't think she is powerfully disposed to USM -- but I do think she really dislikes Klumb. And i think she is smart enough to see the wisdom of fixing this thing now before it gets worse. I don't know how she and Newton get along but I think they are capable of being a powerful team . . .

I can't say I am completely easy about this -- but I think the Board is potentially as open to taking a new direction as it has been in many years, even though Klumb is in charge for the next year. If he isn't careful he might find himself the captain of a rowboat, watching while the ship steams away . . .

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: Crystal Ball
"Or do it without strings related to his daughter... The point is that it MUST be someone from outside the current dome group yet someone familiar with the university and able to quickly assemble an interim team. Aubrey's the most obvious choice - doesn't mean that there aren't others. This is one of the problems with the reorganization - it cut the heart out of an infrastructure that allowed for planned succession. "

Hell, I'll do it. Believe me, after reading the emails in my inbox, I know MORE than most people would want to know about the, *ahem*, inner workings of USM.

Toss my hat into the ring. I'll take the job.

FS

(in a pathetic attempt to interject a moment of levity into what has turned out to be a pretty informative thread. )

Date: Apr 27, 2004

In response to USMSympathizer's list of things the College Board needs to do:

(1) return SFT to his faculty position;

Thames has a tenured faculty position to return to, if he is removed from the presidency.

If the Board is really interested in getting rid of him, won't it try to push him into retirement?

I'm rather skeptical that someone with Thames' oversized ambitions would be willing to return to the faculty anyway--particularly when his conduct as president led nearly all of his colleagues to despise him.

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"
Maybe . . . my early reaction was that she is certainly parroting the "university as opportunity for profit" line . . . but that could be early igorance as well . . . . Barbour and Thames do not see eye to eye . . . I think it is just as possible that Robinson, as a newcomer without much knowlege of the internal workings of the Board, will either cave in with whoever looks like the winner or abstain . . . you can bet there is some serious lobbying going on within the Board right now. I think we have to hope that there is some gender sensibility going on here as well . . . these are all pretty strong women but what i saw at the last Board meeting I attended was the "boy's" circle (Shelby, Klum, etc.) who were all very backslapping "pals" --- and the rest of the Board who were on the outside. I don't think any of the women on the Board are comfortable with the good ol'boy style that Shelby represents -- and believe me when you put all the University Presidents into the mix it is really a man's club and feels like one -- lots of testosterone.
I think this mix of personalities is as volatile as the ideological issues on the Board right now. There are four women on the Board -- if the can unite now and deliver a powerful statement that ousts the good ol' boy candidate they can wrestle a measure of power from Klumb's cronies. I think that might be why Garret is speaking up right now . . .
Whitten is a lawyer and she is very sharp, very legalistic and detail oriented. I think she insists on dotted i's and crossed t's and isn't swayed by the overheated rhetoric of Klumb, who makes her flinch in embarrassment. I don't think she is powerfully disposed to USM -- but I do think she really dislikes Klumb. And i think she is smart enough to see the wisdom of fixing this thing now before it gets worse. I don't know how she and Newton get along but I think they are capable of being a powerful team . . .
I can't say I am completely easy about this -- but I think the Board is potentially as open to taking a new direction as it has been in many years, even though Klumb is in charge for the next year. If he isn't careful he might find himself the captain of a rowboat, watching while the ship steams away . . . "

Very interesting Present Professor. You apear to be a student of the IHL Board and have "inside" information or connections. I can't imagine the board members not being embarrassed every time Klumb speaks, and especially when he writes letters to the editors that are passed around the state.

Otherside

Date: Apr 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" Very interesting Present Professor. You apear to be a student of the IHL Board and have "inside" information or connections. I can't imagine the board members not being embarrassed every time Klumb speaks, and especially when he writes letters to the editors that are passed around the state. Otherside"

I'm a pretty good observer of group dynamics and how power hierarchies work . . . with maybe just a little bit of inside insight but I don't want to pass myself off as having a line to God's ear . . . so take whatever I might say as a contribution as good as but probably no better than anyone else's on this Board . . .

I do think it is good for us to try to figure this Board out --if only so we can figure out how best to make it work for us.

Date: Apr 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"
...I do think it is good for us to try to figure this Board out --if only so we can figure out how best to make it work for us.
"

Maybe Faculty Senate could hire you to plan its strategies in communicating with the new board. If the Senate survives this crisis and Thames is replaced, this Senate (and all of those in the state) will have more influence than ever before in the history of this state.

However, THAT may be the great fear of the IHL Board and could decide their actions.

Otherside

Date: Apr 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" Maybe Faculty Senate could hire you to plan its strategies in communicating with the new board. If the Senate survives this crisis and Thames is replaced, this Senate (and all of those in the state) will have more influence than ever before in the history of this state. However, THAT may be the great fear of the IHL Board and could decide their actions. Otherside"

I'm complimented but in fact the Faculty Senate exec committee has been an amazing strategic team this year. They have logged a huge number of hours in action and discussion . . . and they have been leaders without taking control. Myron, Dave, Joe, and Susan and the committees have been terrific -- bear in mind that evenin the midst of this hell the business of the senate had to continue: the reorganization of committees and reapportionment because of the reduction of colleges; the constitution had to be rewritten . . . I mean it is staggering. In fact, I'd say that the people serving on all faculty academic committees and councils this year really lifted a load because of the reorganization. It makes me want to beat Billy Hewes black and blue for being so stupid and ungrateful.

I think the sad thing is that if the IHL were really open to the possibility of faculty representives elected from the faculty senate officers of the eight universities it would find the faculty incredibly eager and willing to help them. I think that the Presidents often use faculty as a kind of flog for what goes wrong . . . . I think the presence of faculty reps would keep the Presidents honest and force them to represent their universities more objectively . . . . I also think the Board could use some current exposure to real live professors -- whatever exposure they may have gotten is often as students . . . and thus they are apt to bring in the kind of baggage that students bring in, good and bad.

Date: Apr 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"
I'm complimented but in fact the Faculty Senate exec committee has been an amazing strategic team this year. They have logged a huge number of hours in action and discussion . . . and they have been leaders without taking control. Myron, Dave, Joe, and Susan and the committees have been terrific -- bear in mind that evenin the midst of this hell the business of the senate had to continue: the reorganization of committees and reapportionment because of the reduction of colleges; the constitution had to be rewritten . . . I mean it is staggering. In fact, I'd say that the people serving on all faculty academic committees and councils this year really lifted a load because of the reorganization. It makes me want to beat Billy Hewes black and blue for being so stupid and ungrateful.
I think the sad thing is that if the IHL were really open to the possibility of faculty representives elected from the faculty senate officers of the eight universities it would find the faculty incredibly eager and willing to help them. I think that the Presidents often use faculty as a kind of flog for what goes wrong . . . . I think the presence of faculty reps would keep the Presidents honest and force them to represent their universities more objectively . . . . I also think the Board could use some current exposure to real live professors -- whatever exposure they may have gotten is often as students . . . and thus they are apt to bring in the kind of baggage that students bring in, good and bad. "

Oh yes, I couldn’t agree more. Faculty councils have been excellent this year especially the Senate and Graduate Council. I guess the faculty rose to the level needed to deal with an unprecedented situation. I hear Myron Henry is up for reelection to the Senate. I sure hope the faculty in CoST return him to the Senate. I can’t imagine getting through this year without his hardwork and leadership.

I wish the IHL read this FS Board. They would benefit so much by faculty input, especially from someone like Myron. That would be a good suggestion to add to your list of what the IHL could do repair the damage and rebuild faculty morale.

Otherside

Date: Apr 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" Oh yes, I couldn’t agree more. Faculty councils have been excellent this year especially the Senate and Graduate Council. . . . I wish the IHL read this FS Board. They would benefit so much by faculty input, especially from someone like Myron. That would be a good suggestion to add to your list of what the IHL could do repair the damage and rebuild faculty morale. Otherside "

I couldn't agrre more with your post. And that last is an abosolutely great suggestion. I have been swept away by the writing and thinking going on in some sections of this board -- and I think that if our IHL could see some of that, they'd have a much better insight into the hearts and minds of many of their students, faculty and staff.

Date: Apr 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"and I think that if our IHL could see some of that, they'd have a much better insight into the hearts and minds of many of their students, faculty and staff. "

And friends...

They're watching all right - we're not at 75,000+ hits by talking to ourselves!

Date: Apr 27, 2004

Thank you Present Professor for your statements regarding the Faculty Senate. For my two cents, I am proud to be a part of this Senate. I am proud to have served with Myron, Susan, and David (and now Mary Beth). To all the Senators, I have watched and learned from the very best. Let me also note my appreciation of Myron Henry. He has been the very best person to have in the position of Faculty Senate President during this very trying couple of years. He has represented the faculty/Senate with courage and skill. Myron, thank you. Regardless of the outcome, I look back with no regrets on the actions taken by this Senate. Regardless of the outcome, this Senate has operated with the best interests of this University, the faculty, staff, and students at heart.

Joe