I had to grin when I heard that John Hooks had accompanied Jim Keith to the hearing.  Wouldn't Jim Keith have made a great "mediator" - what the IHL had initially appointed him to be.  Thank goodness, they came to their senses on that.

The only thing that I really wished to see was Shelby being cross-examined by Robert McGruff (is that the right spelling?).  I think that if Shelby had been put under the hot seat yesterday, Thames's supporters would not be nearly as outspoken that "he won." 

But you are right, FS, it doesn't seem possible to me how Thames's supporters can actually believe that he won yesterday, especially after the "speech" that he gave.

P.S. Sorry about an earlier thread -I get a little cranky in the morning myself, especially when up late working on term papers.

Up to now, I've been a silent (but very interested) observer on this board.  But I have to comment on the matter of Shelby's testimony yesterday--especially since many folks come to this site to learn and understand.  Among the many weaknesses and self-incriminating revelations in that testimony, I want to point out a few (some of these may have already been mentioned on other threads--sorry, if so):

(1) Jack Hanbury is not, as Thames claimed twice yesterday, the "University Attorney."  This mis-statement was brought forward in the brief rebuttal period given to Frank and Gary.  But the fact that Shelby could SAY it was so more than once--and that his attorney did not stop to correct him either time--indicates not only shoddy preparation, but also where Thames stands with regard to legal counsel at this university.  I'm sure, in any case, that Lee Gore was interested to learn that someone else has his job. 

(2) In one of the gotten-through-spying e-mails, Thames cites Gary as mentioning the "firing" of the nine deans of our former colleges.  Thames called this a "lie" and insisted that they were not fired.  This is, I think, news to the nine deans.  When your job is eliminated and you are told that, as of July 1, you will no longer be doing the job that you have been doing (in some cases for more than two decades!), you have, I think, been fired . . . 

(3) In another of the gotten-through-spying e-mails, Thames quoted a letter from Gary Stringer to Julie Lindquist, a faculty member at Michigan State.  Keith asked Thames if Julie Lindquist had ever been a faculty member at USM.  I was waiting for Thames to concede that in fact, she had been: Julie Lindquist served this university with distinction as a member of the English Department for five years--until she was lured away for a job that gave her immediate tenure, promotion, and a $20,000 salary increase.  The fact that Thames didn't know this is disturbing.  The fact that Keith asked him the question--and didn't know the correct answer himself!--is embarrassing to him/them and indicates (again!) really shoddy preparation. 

(4) Thames mistakenly named Dvorak as the "Vice President of Administration"--a slip that, I admit, he corrected.  This would be humorous if (like the Hanbury-as-university-attorney remark) it were not so telling.  This tells us a lot about Thames' priorities at USM.  I don't need to rehearse the dangers of those priorities--they've been addressed by many already in recent weeks on this message board and in eloquent and impassioned letters to many of the region's newspapers--but I do think the fact that Thames could claim (to the embarrassment of this institution) that Dvorak does not need tenure to do her job highlights those dangerous tendencies.  I do not know of any other institution where the Vice President for Research (and, in this case, Economic Development) does not have tenure.  The fact that Thames could claim that she doesn't need it reveals that for him, "research" means only one thing: engaging in endeavors that generate dollars for the university.   Traditional forms of ACADEMIC scholarship--those forms in which humanities faculty members (in particular) are engaged--are clearly not a part of this vision.  That's why he can say that he can't imagine why she needs tenure to do her job--and why he claimed that her primary responsibility is "managing" research at USM.

(5) FS mentions in another section of this site the paternalistic vision that Shelby manifested yesterday when he repeatedly referred to Dvorak as "that lady"--like a knight in shining armor, apparently, he rode out to protect "that lady's" reputation.  One point, of course, is that he isn't doing Dvorak's PROFESSIONAL reputation any favors when he demeans her in this way.  But more: he's also telling us in no uncertain terms that the terminations of Frank and Gary were, for him, PERSONAL.  In his closing remarks, he told us that while anyone could say anything about him (if you believe this, then refer to an earlier post on another thread about land on Big Bay Lake!), when a colleague gets questioned, that is "over the bounds."  I guess Shelby has a different interpretation of free speech than most of us.   One of the last--perhaps THE last--thing he said is that when Frank and Gary questioned Dvorak, they "had to pay the price."  If we needed any proof that these firings were retaliatory, the "pay the price" language makes things crystal clear.   

(6) One final point that follows from #5: a chilling message was sent yesterday about who else might "pay the price" if--god forbid--Shelby stays on as president at this university.  We've all known for awhile that e-mail is monitored; many suspect that phones are also tapped.  We should be outraged at the depths to which this administration is willing to stoop to get dirt on those who disagree with them.  Who knows who they'll come after next--and with what "private" e-mail message they (you? me?) will be indicted--but if he (they) stay on, they're coming.  It's just a question of time. 

My apologies for the length of this post.  It is my first and likely to be my last--so I had to get it all offmychest.