UPDATE! What's happening right now!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

UPDATE! What's happening right now!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I say the boys "settle" at nothing less than a full apology from Shelby and his henchmen. There is nothing to settle - the crap Shelby pulled out of his ass to day did nothing but embarass himself and USM. G&F did NOTHING WRONG. This is fully a free speech issue - nothing more. In an ideal world, the troll would agree to pay legal fees for F&G too....

Date: Apr 28, 2004

oh my gosh...i just cant handle the suspence.redface

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I hope the speculation is correct. It couldn't possibly get any more embarrassing for Thames than the judge trying to throw the whole thing out after hearing nothing more than his testimony.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: aghast
"I hope the speculation is correct. It couldn't possibly get any more embarrassing for Thames than the judge trying to throw the whole thing out after hearing nothing more than his testimony. "

big smile, really big smile.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

But I still think Frank and Gary deserve a turn to be heard. If they leave it as is then the media will only have Thames's side. They are already reporting what he said as though it were true. Look at the Sun Herald and Clarion Ledger online. F & G should get a chance to refute what Thames just said.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

if Anderson throws it all out - it will speak volumes.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Glenda
"But I still think Frank and Gary deserve a turn to be heard. If they leave it as is then the media will only have Thames's side. They are already reporting what he said as though it were true. Look at the Sun Herald and Clarion Ledger online. F & G should get a chance to refute what Thames just said."

They can refute it when this is all over if they don't get their chance today.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Everyone is entering the hearing room right now...will keep you posted.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I am puzzled.

First, Anderson hinted that he wanted an open hearing, got it from the profs & now he's closed it.

Second, I didn't think IHL authorized Anderson to negotiate a settlement. He was merely to conduct the hearing. IHL will get three recommendations: Anderson's, the UAC's & Shelby's. The IHL board will then pick the one they want to go with. And the board president has already said which one that is going to be.

Third, it is patently unfair to allow Thames to trash these gentlemen's reputations without giving them equal time to rebut. Without their side of the story, what the press reports will be only Shelby's side of the story.

Has anybody spied Anderson carrying a silver platter between the rooms yet?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Are there any lawyers online -- or can someone consult a lawyer -- to explain what may be happening. This speculation already offered is VERY encouraging; I sure would love to hear a legal expert add his or her 2 cents!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

If this does all get thrown out, is the judge likely to offer an explanation of WHY it was tossed?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"If this does all get thrown out, is the judge likely to offer an explanation of WHY it was tossed?"

And also, if it tossed, what will happen to Thames? Will he just look bad, or will there be any action taken against him?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Not sure about any possible legal action against him, but his days as Pres would have to be limited. Too large a % of faculty opposed to him before this...if this is tossed, those positions will become even firmer. And Thames ability to instill fear in faculty for speaking out will be diminished.

quote:

Originally posted by: la chica
"And also, if it tossed, what will happen to Thames? Will he just look bad, or will there be any action taken against him? "

Date: Apr 28, 2004

This isn't a regular civil suit, but if it were...

The judge could toss it because Thames's side didn't make a case. He would then have to make an announcement to that effect.

However, if a settlement was negotiated between the two sides, the judge doesn't have to announce the terms, just say there was a settlement.

Somebody who knows more about the law can correct me...

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Not sure about any possible legal action against him, but his days as Pres would have to be limited. Too large a % of faculty opposed to him before this...if this is tossed, those positions will become even firmer. And Thames ability to instill fear in faculty for speaking out will be diminished.

quote:

Originally posted by: la chica
"And also, if it tossed, what will happen to Thames? Will he just look bad, or will there be any action taken against him? "

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Not sure about any possible legal action against him, but his days as Pres would have to be limited. Too large a % of faculty opposed to him before this...if this is tossed, those positions will become even firmer. And Thames ability to instill fear in faculty for speaking out will be diminished.

quote:

Originally posted by: la chica
"And also, if it tossed, what will happen to Thames? Will he just look bad, or will there be any action taken against him? "

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Not sure about any possible legal action against him, but his days as Pres would have to be limited. Too large a % of faculty opposed to him before this...if this is tossed, those positions will become even firmer. And Thames ability to instill fear in faculty for speaking out will be diminished.

quote:

Originally posted by: la chica
"And also, if it tossed, what will happen to Thames? Will he just look bad, or will there be any action taken against him? "

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"I am puzzled. First, Anderson hinted that he wanted an open hearing, got it from the profs & now he's closed it. Second, I didn't think IHL authorized Anderson to negotiate a settlement. He was merely to conduct the hearing. IHL will get three recommendations: Anderson's, the UAC's & Shelby's. The IHL board will then pick the one they want to go with. And the board president has already said which one that is going to be. Third, it is patently unfair to allow Thames to trash these gentlemen's reputations without giving them equal time to rebut. Without their side of the story, what the press reports will be only Shelby's side of the story. Has anybody spied Anderson carrying a silver platter between the rooms yet? "

Quite correct in your assessment.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: educator
"Quite correct in your assessment."

So Judge Anderson was carrying a silver platter between the rooms? (You look ... I don't want to

)

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Not sure about any possible legal action against him, but his days as Pres would have to be limited. Too large a % of faculty opposed to him before this...if this is tossed, those positions will become even firmer. And Thames ability to instill fear in faculty for speaking out will be diminished.

quote:

Originally posted by: la chica
"And also, if it tossed, what will happen to Thames? Will he just look bad, or will there be any action taken against him? "

Date: Apr 28, 2004

The longer this goes on, the more I am persuaded that this CAN'T be good news for SFT. It is looking more and more as if the judge is not interested in his three box-loads of purloined e-mail mesages.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

WUSM back with session!

Best interest of faculty and staff to put matter behind us.

Want to heal the wounds and engage in constructive and postive efforts.

This is concluded, no other public comment.

However, since Thames has testified, professors feel they should have opportunity to testify.

They have 30 minutes each to testify.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

before I go...very pertinent song by Bob Dylan on WUSM "Mississippi"--"Only one thing I did wrong/stayed in Mississippi a day too long." This CAN'T be a coincidence!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

That's the only interpretation I can think of. They've used nearly 1/2 of the day's time for these private meetings. Anderson must be trying to broker a deal of some sort.

And if he told Thames that his evidence doesn't hold up, the hold up must be Glamser and Stringer wanting some type of apology/remedy.

I'm thinking $250,00 each would work

quote:

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"The longer this goes on, the more I am persuaded that this CAN'T be good news for SFT. It is looking more and more as if the judge is not interested in his three box-loads of purloined e-mail mesages. "

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Yipee!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Outside Observer
"Not sure about any possible legal action against him, but his days as Pres would have to be limited. Too large a % of faculty opposed to him before this...if this is tossed, those positions will become even firmer. And Thames ability to instill fear in faculty for speaking out will be diminished."

Well, if nothing else results from this, I hope that all USM faculty will cease using the university e-mail system. Someone posted a graphic elsewhere on the board the Wicked Witch and her crystal ball, but SFT has her beat by a long shot by using e-mail as a way of keeping tabs on people.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: BogusBoy
"WUSM back with session! Best interest of faculty and staff to put matter behind us. Want to heal the wounds and engage in constructive and postive efforts. This is concluded, no other public comment. However, since Thames has testified, professors feel they should have opportunity to testify. They have 30 minutes each to testify. "

It's OVER!!!! WOOOHOOOO!!!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

They are settling! I knew it! Go, Gary and Frank!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Outside Observer
"Not sure about any possible legal action against him, but his days as Pres would have to be limited. Too large a % of faculty opposed to him before this...if this is tossed, those positions will become even firmer. And Thames ability to instill fear in faculty for speaking out will be diminished."

Well, if nothing else results from this, I hope that all USM faculty will cease using the university e-mail system. Someone posted a graphic elsewhere on the board the Wicked Witch and her crystal ball, but SFT has her beat by a long shot by using e-mail as a way of keeping tabs on people.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I might point out that the Hatt Amer. still hasn't posted any of this!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

If nothing else comes out of this hearing, the image of Shelby Thames reading one email after another, all of them obtained surreptitiously from faculty members' computers, will stick in a lot of minds.

USM Faculty Senate--it's time to draft a revised computer use policy that treats obtaining an employee's email without his or her permission on the same footing as opening his or her snail mail, or tapping his or her phone line.

The administration won't like it, but widespread media coverage can, I think, be guaranteed.

Treating computers as though they aren't communication devices has to stop.

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Glamser & Stringer are gone. See, you should have waited until the facts were out.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

The Hattiesburg American still hasn't updated since 2:42 PM.

Scooped again by Fire Shelby!

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Please somebody, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? sitting on pins and needles here in VA and then that stupid ass Yippeee, posting everywhere that G&S are gone PLEEEZZZEEE

Date: Apr 28, 2004

The judge came and announced the hearings were over. But he is giving Stringer and Glamser 30 minutes each to give their side of the story. Right now Glamser is speaking. He is just saying what happened when he first got the information about Dvorak's vita...everything you already have read on this site.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: johan Yssel
"Please somebody, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? sitting on pins and needles here in VA and then that stupid ass Yippeee, posting everywhere that G&S are gone PLEEEZZZEEE "

Anderson reconvenes the hearing. He states that it is in the best interest of the university to put this incident behind it. He says the dispute between Thames and the professors will be resolved without any further public testimony. However, he says, Glamer and Stringer will each be allowed to make 30-minute statements.

Otherside

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: johan Yssel
"Please somebody, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? sitting on pins and needles here in VA and then that stupid ass Yippeee, posting everywhere that G&S are gone PLEEEZZZEEE "

Yippee is a troll with a pipe dream.

Everything points to this having been settled in favor of the professors.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

HOWEVER,

NOTHING has been said about the two resigning or anything of the sort. They just said the parties have agreed to work everything out in private. That's all I know. So Yippee, or whatever the idiot's name is, is totally misinformed.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Thank you guys!!! Trust me, I will be toasting all of you tonite, BIG time!!!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I know for a fact, that Glamser and Stringer have agreed to resign. This stuff now is just to let them try to save face. They are done.

You see... they misled all of you.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I thought the rules here were no personal insults? Let's see if you guys can demonstrate some class.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

And who would your source of this information be, Yippee? Or may I call you Angeline???

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Can't reveal my source, but you just wait and see. You will find out that I am right.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Yippee
"I know for a fact, that Glamser and Stringer have agreed to resign. This stuff now is just to let them try to save face. They are done. You see... they misled all of you."

oh, so...anderson let you sit in on the closed meetings and you know this as fact? state your sources and show proof or shush...

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lewis and Gilbert
"Or may I call you Angeline???"

Remember, L&G, no personal insults!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Yippee
"I know for a fact, that Glamser and Stringer have agreed to resign. This stuff now is just to let them try to save face. They are done. You see... they misled all of you."

oh, so...anderson let you sit in on the closed meetings and you know this as fact? state your sources and show proof or shush...

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Why would they resign when there was no real evidence presented against them?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Now that Yippee has been quiet for about 30 seconds - what is Frank saying? Has he revealed all of his heinous acts yet???

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Are the professors making their statements yet? Or has a time been set for that?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

GLamser is saying that the things he provided to the Printz writer was nothing more, nothing less, that what other news outlets were getting.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ha
""

No one in this forum has ever bothered to prove any of the claims they make. You watch. You listen. Then you will learn that I speak the truth!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ha
""

No one in this forum has ever bothered to prove any of the claims they make. You watch. You listen. Then you will learn that I speak the truth!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Prove your statements yourself, Yippee!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

FYI:
In a trial-type situation, the prosecution has to put on its case first for a reason. . if they don't meet a particular burden of proof, then the defense is allowed to make a motion to dismiss (without putting on ANY evidence to rebut because they don't have to) -- this is because the prosecution has failed to state a cause of action. Despite Yipee's "source," this would seem more likely to me given the current day's events. . and that the professor's current testimony is in the interest of fairness -- to maintain their own reputations and give them a voice (especially since they were attacked on a personal level during SFT's testimony this morning).

Date: Apr 28, 2004

FYI:
In a trial-type situation, the prosecution has to put on its case first for a reason. . if they don't meet a particular burden of proof, then the defense is allowed to make a motion to dismiss (without putting on ANY evidence to rebut because they don't have to) -- this is because the prosecution has failed to state a cause of action. Despite Yipee's "source," this would seem more likely to me given the current day's events. . and that the professor's current testimony is in the interest of fairness -- to maintain their own reputations and give them a voice (especially since they were attacked on a personal level during SFT's testimony this morning).

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Glamser is explaining why the girl from the Printz, Rachel, contacted him a lot. He explains that he is the president of the AAUP, and she wanted story ideas. Glamser stated that all of those emails were initiated by Rachel, and were strictly for newspaper/article ideas purposes.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

They will prove themselves. You will soon find out that Glamser and Stringer have agreed to resign. I know this as fact.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Yippee,

If they have agreed to resign, would you just settle down and let us find out for ourselves. I still don't understand how you know this before we do--unless as one other person said, you were in those meetings.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Yippee - you remind me of the fly that just keeps buzzing by your head that's just a bit too quick to be swatted. So, to quote your hero Shelby, be a red-blooded male (or female, if that's the case) and release your source. Otherwise, shush!!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

So there will be no cross examination of Thames? Damn...was looking forward to that!

I assume then that Thames lawyers will not be allowed to ask Glamser and Stringer any questions

quote:

Originally posted by: Invictus
"Are the professors making their statements yet? Or has a time been set for that? "

Date: Apr 28, 2004

March 4 2004

Meeting with Jack Hanburry and Glamser

Admin building is the location

Q: He’s been said to be ‘university attorney’ is that true?

A: No, that’s Lee Gore.

Glamser took dept. chair with him to meeting

Both sides had tape recorders

Glamser initially answered some questions

Questions initially about packet, the cover letter, the dates, glamser’s email to thames about Clarion Ledger having packet.

Handburry asked Glamser “did you write the packet?”

Tone of meeting changed at that point

Glamser wanted to quit meeting cause he didn’t have attorney

Handburry said this is not a criminal proceeding

Glamser said I came over as a courtesy, but will stop now

Dean, provost, and Univ. Attorney weren’t there – there was no threat of firing from Hanburry at this meeting

“The die was cast” – Glamser

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Outside Observer
""

fill me in on the latest. What's being said.--can't get it online nor on my radio--I'm in Mdn.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Isn't a cross-examination of Shelby Thames something his side was eager to avoid?

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I'm sure they were..but I was sure looking forward to it!

quote:

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Isn't a cross-examination of Shelby Thames something his side was eager to avoid? Robert Campbell"

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Glamser--

I think it was a punitive action

My lock was changed

On television it was said over and over again that I might be a criminal

Said that I wasn’t a Red Blooded American Male

If I hadn’t been outspoken in the fall, I would not be sitting here

If I hadn’t been prez of AAUP I would not be sitting here.

Stringer is now up.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

3:41 pm

Reuben Anderson asked Adelman to wrap up his questioning of Glamser (he had exceeded his 30 min). A. says "I'm heading towards home.

A to Glamser: Did you conspire to discredit Dvorak with Gary Stringer?

G: No.

A: Was it your intention to undermine the university?

G: No.

A: Please briefly tell us why you think these termination proceedings were initiated against you.

G: To intimidate me. I was taken out of my classroom, locks were changed, I was called a criminal, challenged to give up my rights to confidentiality, etc.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Thanks for the updates. . HA "live" coverage hasn't been changed since the 3:12 post. . please continue to post as much as you can.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

The reason there is no cross-examination of Dr. Thames is because the case is over. They agreed to resign, but part of the deal was that they get to try to explain their depredations which, as yet, they have refused to address.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Stringer –

Q - What was reaction in English dept about Dvorak getting job?

A – Thought it might be “good news for a change”, since she is in English, not sciences and might be a nice change and good for English dept.

Q- William Kuskin had promotion denied – what had your dept. recommended

A – We recommended he be promoted, were frustrated when it didn’t happen

Why denied??
A – Univ. Advisory committee and Dvorak were included in the decision, provosts in consultation with Dvorak... said scholarship was not up to snuff.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Yeah, the HA has pretty much laid an egg today. Where's Yippee???

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I just dodged in & out of the EagleTalk sports bulletin board. They are celebrating Thames' stellar performance. Their conclusion is identical to Yippie's -- Shelby's "evidence" scared the professors into dropping the hearing.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: updates
"Thanks for the updates. . HA "live" coverage hasn't been changed since the 3:12 post. . please continue to post as much as you can."

I second that. I wish I could be watching and hearing what some of you see. Please give more info. the more the better, I particularly like the quotes--play by play.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

There is no cross of Dr. Thames because the case is over. They agreed to resign and are allowed to speak to explain their depredations, but they are avoiding them.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

3:44pm

I think this is McDuff questioning Stringer.

M: How long have you worked at USM?
S: 33 years.

M: is it fair to say that you have spent much time in service to the university?

S: Yes.

M: Do you recall when Angie started work at USM?
S: 2002

M: What was the reaction to her appointment?

S: From dept. chair email:" Maybe some good news" Since Angie had an English degree we thought this was a good idea.

M: Prof. William Kuskin in English Dept. had tenure denied...what happened?

S: Our dept had recommended that he be promoted, and it was denied by the administration.

M: What are 3 factors noted in administration's response?

S: Angie was mentioned that she had contributed to this tenure decision re: Wm. Kuskin. (Kuskin gave his permission to use his name and documents--go DR. K!).

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Yippee, where were you educated? in polymer science?

quote:

Originally posted by: Yippee
"There is no cross of Dr. Thames because the case is over. They agreed to resign and are allowed to speak to explain their depredations, but they are avoiding them."

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"I just dodged in & out of the EagleTalk sports bulletin board. They are celebrating Thames' stellar performance. Their conclusion is identical to Yippie's -- Shelby's "evidence" scared the professors into dropping the hearing.
"

Then we'll just have to wait and see. I can't imagine that anything about what he said was in the least bit scary. He sounded like a bitter old fool who had done a very sloppy job of gathering his facts.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

More explanation...

Stringer explains why he emailed Julie Lindquist about William Kuskin's tenure decision. Julie Lindquist was at Mich. U.

S: We fully expected that Dvorak would become a tenured professor of English--this is IHL procedure. It has always happened with every other administrator I had ever known.

3:50 pm

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: aghast
" Then we'll just have to wait and see. I can't imagine that anything about what he said was in the least bit scary. He sounded like a bitter old fool who had done a very sloppy job of gathering his facts."

WHAT LOSERS!!! ARE THEY THAT STUPID???!!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Notice how they simply try to justify their investigation, but do not deny that they used her social security number, misrepresented themselves, and trashed a student, disclosing his/her academic information.

They had no case and they knew it.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

If they felt they had no case and folded their cards, I doubt the Judge would let them each speak for 30 mins

quote:

Originally posted by: Yippee
"Notice how they simply try to justify their investigation, but do not deny that they used her social security number, misrepresented themselves, and trashed a student, disclosing his/her academic information. They had no case and they knew it. "

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Yippee
"Notice how they simply try to justify their investigation, but do not deny that they used her social security number, misrepresented themselves, and trashed a student, disclosing his/her academic information. They had no case and they knew it. "

You are so misinformed....TRUTH will prevail as always! The professors would agree to nothing less than reinstatement. Go away, troll!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Last time I checked, this was a forum indended for supporters of Professors Glamser and Stringer

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm
"You are so misinformed....TRUTH will prevail as always! The professors would agree to nothing less than reinstatement. Go away, troll!"

And public exoneration.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

The judge would not have intervened against the professors before hearing their side. The only reason to end it this quickly is lack of evidence.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Apparently, Anne Wallace prepared a report as part of the AAUP investigation analyzing Dr. Dvorak's academic publications that trashed them. Dr. Stringer decided not to release this report. Evidence that he was not on a mission to get Dr. Dvorak.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I say let Yippee talk. It's a free country. I just want Yippee to tell me this - do you truly feel that Gary and Frank should be fired for what we heard today? Also, you don't think the national media and ACLU will absolutely kill Shelby for his email shenanigans? He is an absolute pox on this fine university - we will never recover from this. I'm would never want my children to attend USM as long as he is running things....

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm
"You are so misinformed....TRUTH will prevail as always! The professors would agree to nothing less than reinstatement. Go away, troll!"

Let freedom ring.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

M: Did you expect that your emails would be looked at by the Thames adminstration?

GS: No, I did not.

M: Did you look into publications by Dvorak?

GS: Yes, I did. Anne Wallace did it.

GS: I told the AAUP that the report on Dvorak's publications shouldn't be released--that we should focus on the information on tenure that was presented to us in the anonymous packet.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Dvorak's SSN came on a sticky note on another copy of D's CV that was put in Stringer's home mailbox. That's how he got it.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm
"You are so misinformed....TRUTH will prevail as always! The professors would agree to nothing less than reinstatement. Go away, troll!"

Let freedom ring.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

L&G,

I commend you on your decorum and recognizing the right of opposing viewpoints. Your question deserves a response.

Yes, I do believe they should have been fired. Here's why:

1) They illegally misused her social security number to get confidential employment information.

2) Stringer misrepresented himself to KCTCS officials--twice.

3) They both lied to the whole university community claiming that their investigation was due to the anonymous packet.

The whole "investigation" of Dvorak was a sham.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

4:06 CST

RE: Kelly Rice memo (re: chair of English dept. comment)

GS: I did not tell her I was chair of English dept. I told her I was professor of English.

Mention of student's name (criticizing student):

McDuff: Did you use any confidential information when talking about this student?

GS: No. It was my opinion only.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

If they had done anything "illegal" the Judge would still be hearing testimony and we'd all be back tomorrow for another session

quote:

Originally posted by: Yippee
"L&G, I commend you on your decorum and recognizing the right of opposing viewpoints. Your question deserves a response. Yes, I do believe they should have been fired. Here's why: 1) They illegally misused her social security number to get confidential employment information. 2) Stringer misrepresented himself to KCTCS officials--twice. 3) They both lied to the whole university community claiming that their investigation was due to the anonymous packet. The whole "investigation" of Dvorak was a sham."

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"Are the professors making their statements yet? Or has a time been set for that? "

They are, and I'm falling in love with the USM faculty all over again!!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Yippee
"L&G, I commend you on your decorum and recognizing the right of opposing viewpoints. Your question deserves a response. Yes, I do believe they should have been fired. Here's why: 1) They illegally misused her social security number to get confidential employment information.

How??????? In MS, your SSN is on your drivers' license for crying out loud! It's not a crime to have a person's SSN!

2) Stringer misrepresented himself to KCTCS officials--twice.

When? How? What evidence?

3) They both lied to the whole university community claiming that their investigation was due to the anonymous packet.

Where's your evidence for this?

The whole "investigation" of Dvorak was a sham."

Where's your evidence? C'mon...put up or shut up.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

no comments to be made until the recommendation of Thames is made and approved by College board

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I'm in tears. Thank you.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I believe there was an affidavit from Pamela Standridge at WDAM that Dvorak's social security number was plainly printed on information given to her by Lisa Mader, USM PR person.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Ok...who's gonna take the first watch at the Dome...watching for moving vans pulling up? He really is likely to become the Roaming Gnome after this!