anyone see this??

Date: May 1, 2004

anyone see this??

Date: May 1, 2004

what was the lawfirm hanbury was at in kentucky. Did anyone ever find out what his legal status was as an attorney

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: flyonthewall
"http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/st042604mba.htm"

Everyone should see this. It shows Thames for what he is, especially his remarks (quoted below from the letter) that imply a threat if the Faculty Senate and the authors of the letters continue to burden the adminstration with requests for information. Does he think he has divine right and answers to no one?

____________

President Thames’ Response. In your April 15 letter on salaries, you write,

‘The Faculty Senate's constitution states "The Senate shall provide for the faculty both a forum and a voice and so allow it to assert for the general welfare of the University its distinctive viewpoint and principles." Continuing to burden this administration with nonproductive paperwork regarding issues designed to create division does not further the welfare of the University or our students.’ [bold print added]

--------------

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

In response to Kentucky law firm question:

Go look at my "exclusives" page. It is in there somewhere, in the article I wrote about Hanbury leaving several businesses in bad standing.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

Well, I guess I will be updating the webpaged today. This is very important. Everyone needs to read it.

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: flyonthewall
"http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/st042604mba.htm"

This is exactly the sort of information (updated org chart, salaries & accounts, etc) that a campus self study committee would require while preparing for SACS accreditation. Thames refers them to the budget. Yes, lines of authority can be discerned by studying the budget, but budgets can also be used to obscure lines of authority. Plus, trying to recreate an org chart from the budget is a mind-numbing chore.

What sort of administration doesn't have an org chart? And what is the problem with asking where a specific employee sits on the org chart? Why was a FOIA request necessary to obtain public information? Is Thames so ignorant of accountability that he doesn't bother to keep a current org chart for public view?

<PATRIOTIC BACKGROUND MUSIC>
The taxpayers of Mississippi pay for this azalea festival. They pay the state appropriation & the tuition & fees. Dr. Thames frequently pontificates about "accountability" for the faculty. Maybe it's time for Shelby Thames to show a little "accountability" himself & explain a few things plainly & (if possible) honestly, not just to the Faculty Senate but to the taxpayers of Mississippi!
</PATRIOTIC BACKGROUND MUSIC>

Date: May 1, 2004

i know they have an organizational chart. have seen it myself. they just don't want to show it. i doubt, however, that SACS would want to know the accounts people are paid from.

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" This is exactly the sort of information (updated org chart, salaries & accounts, etc) that a campus self study committee would require while preparing for SACS accreditation. Thames refers them to the budget. "

In all likelihood the positions in question are not funded through General Fund resources (i.e., annual allocations from the state). Only General Fund positions are required to be published in the annual budget book. People paid totally by "soft money" or by funds held in reserve are not listed.

Date: May 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"i know they have an organizational chart. have seen it myself. they just don't want to show it. i doubt, however, that SACS would want to know the accounts people are paid from."

You're right. Most SACS reviews don't need that level of detail.

A campus (faculty/staff) self-study committee might need that information to document compliance with the SACS requirements for the institutional report. Thames actually directed the Senate to the "who pays whom from which account" information, so that's a moot point. The point is that the request p***ed him off & he figured to throw the org chart in for good measure. His refusal to send an org chart was just arrogant & rude.

An institution as organizationally diseased as USM is going to have issues with accreditation. SACS peer evaluators comprise both academics & administrators & the majority of them read the Chronicle. When the compliance report & Quality Enhancement Plan are submitted from USM, you can be certain they'll get a very thorough reading. Depending on how they fall out on privacy & free speech issues, they could be very demanding in their analysis.

Date: May 1, 2004

so true. i think our SACS review will be ST's downfall and some others. in fairness, however, i have to add that USM should have been doing things since 1995. that said, these governance issues are killers. i know an associate director at SACS, and he confirms that.

Date: May 1, 2004

Invictus,

You're right. What's badly needed is some administrative accountability.

In my experience, university administrations are practically in love with their org charts.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 2, 2004

http://www.usm.edu/fsenate/reports/adhoc_comm_report_040704_apr7_rev-2.htm

Date: May 2, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Googler
"In all likelihood the positions in question are not funded through General Fund resources (i.e., annual allocations from the state). Only General Fund positions are required to be published in the annual budget book. People paid totally by "soft money" or by funds held in reserve are not listed. "

This I can vouch for. I was paid with soft money when I worked in Polymer Science as their grant writer. If you notice in some of the PR pieces, it will say that positions are funded "privately" (I think Kelli Booth, Ken Malone's wife, has her position funded "privately."). These are most likely donations made by wealthy FOS (Friends o' Shelby) to the USM Foundation, and then somehow re-routed to pay for these positions. The revenue stream I was paid from came from a conference that the Polymer Science dept. runs in New Orleans each year called the Waterborne Conference (something to do with waterborne polymers). Apparently, many people were paid from this same pot of money. Also, some folks can be paid from grants (another source of "soft money.").

Like Googler said, the only people you'll see in the budget books are those who have "hard" budget lines for their positions. I'll wager none of these folks are paid in that way.