Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should consider
Post Info TOPIC: A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should consider
Fire Shelby


Status: Offline
Posts: 1140
Date:
A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should consider
Permalink Closed

If Drs. Glamser and Stringer would not have taken the agreement, it is highly likely that the three recommendations would have been handed over to a college board presided over by Roy Klumb.


It would have been more likely that, had they not agreed to the offer, Angie Dvorak would have unleashed her lawyer buddies on them. 


We don't know what Angie will do--she is basically holding USM hostage with the professors' necks still on the block.  She claims that she will watch campus events, and if she is satisfied with them, she might not sue.  This is a vindictive woman, one who has no case, I might add.  Mississippi juries and judges are another topic .....


Now, I ask anyone who has heard or read Klumb's remarks to the media throughout this ordeal, especially those last night, to somehow convince me that the professors would have "won" their case had a Klumb-led college board adjudicated the case.  As far as we know, we only have ONE firm advocate--Virginia C. Newton.


As was demonstrated on WLOX and in other news items over the weekend, the professors are still taking the heat.  Shelby and minions are still on a mission to destroy their good names.  This is hurtful to the professors and to their families as they continue to feel the sting of Thames' guns. 


I hope the bickering over the settlement dies soon--it appears to have waned here.  Let me just say that things could have gone much worse, had the board received the recs and made a decision.  We could have wholesaledly lost.


We have supported these men since March 5.  They deserve our continued support.  We all know that, if they had their "druthers," they would rather be on campus performing the work that is their love.  Imagine how they feel, sitting at home, reading this message board, watching the news, feeling like they are still being attacked, only now also by their former defenders and many of their friends. If I were them, I would be heartbroken.


Would any of us want to have Roy Klumb making a decision that would affect the rest of our lives and careers?  I, for one, say HELL no.


NO QUARTER to the scoundrels.


(I have to get to work--will check in this evening on replies.)



__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

Good point, FS!


Klumb has already vented his displeasure with the settlement, by not attending Friday's Board meeting.


After May 8, there would have been a settlement over his dead body.


Klumb has to be at least as furious at the settlement as Thames is.


Robert Campbell



__________________
present professor

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Good point, FS! Klumb has already vented his displeasure with the settlement, by not attending Friday's Board meeting. After May 8, there would have been a settlement over his dead body. Klumb has to be at least as furious at the settlement as Thames is. Robert Campbell"
I think your eyesight on this one is 20/20 Bob. Good job FS!

__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

If there is any good news in the mess at USM, it is that SFT and his friends blast off one toe after another.  Just when the issue might have seemed to begun to lose some steam, Klumb goes on the air and makes people madder than they have been in a good while -- AND he also unintentionally generates new sympathy for the fired professors.  Way to go, Roy!  And I agree with FS: people who have criticized the limited victory G&S won last week need to realize that they are STILL the main targets of attack and thus need our continued sympathy and support.

__________________
Wonder

Date:
Permalink Closed

I am assuming that G&S did nothing wrong wrt the SS #. I assume that a jury would find them innocent of wrongdoing. Even given those assumptions, Dvorak has/had the ability to make life very miserable for G&S if she pursues/pursued a lawsuit.


If she had just said, "Oops, I made a mistake on my CV. Let me clarify!" a whole lot of misery would have been averted. I hope you are all rid of her soon.



__________________
JustAsking

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"people who have criticized the limited victory G&S won last week need to realize that they are STILL the main targets of attack and thus need our continued sympathy and support."

Not only that, by criticizing those who have already sacrificed so much, we help Shelby achieve his goal of destroying them, and we generate divisiveness among ourselves. Neither of those outcomes is helpful to our long-term goals or getting rid of the morally and intellectually bankrupt administration.


Anita Stamper



__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

Good point!  By attacking those who have already made huge sacrifices, critics will thereby discourage others from being willing to make sacrifices.  Who wants to be the target of enemies as well as of friends?  I suspect, though, that by now the tide of sentiment is turning (or has turned) and that even people who were critical on Friday are beginning to appreciate that G&S achieved all that it was humanly possible to achieve given the way the deck wa stacked against them.  Also, it helps to have people like Roy Klumb continuing to vilify them to make people appreciate the price they have paid and continue to pay.  Thanks, Roy!  Where would we be without you? 

__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
RE: A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should cons
Permalink Closed

You will see I have left a comment (somewhat hastily written, but I think it's sort of readable) on Liberty and Power after Charles Nuckolls complained about Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer "selling out."

I will say more about it when I make my next contribution to the blog.

Nuckolls is well intentioned--he has fought hard against an administration at the University of Alabama that doesn't want anyone to know how much the grading standards vary from one discipline to another--but he didn't know the background, and he reacted as some people did on this board on Friday and Saturday.

Sorry, but you can't expect others to fight the entire battle for you!

Robert Campbell

__________________
Patti

Date:
RE: RE: A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Good point!  By attacking those who have already made huge sacrifices, critics will thereby discourage others from being willing to make sacrifices.  Who wants to be the target of enemies as well as of friends?  I suspect, though, that by now the tide of sentiment is turning (or has turned) and that even people who were critical on Friday are beginning to appreciate that G&S achieved all that it was humanly possible to achieve given the way the deck wa stacked against them.  Also, it helps to have people like Roy Klumb continuing to vilify them to make people appreciate the price they have paid and continue to pay.  Thanks, Roy!  Where would we be without you? "



Maybe a lot better off?

__________________
TruthCannotHurtUs

Date:
RE: A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should consider
Permalink Closed


quote:

Originally posted by:
"If Drs. Glamser and Stringer would not have taken the agreement, it is highly likely that the three recommendations would have been handed over to a college board presided over by Roy Klumb. It would have been more likely that, had they not agreed to the offer, Angie Dvorak would have unleashed her lawyer buddies on them.  We don't know what Angie will do--she is basically holding USM hostage with the professors' necks still on the block.  She claims that she will watch campus events, and if she is satisfied with them, she might not sue.  This is a vindictive woman, one who has no case, I might add.  Mississippi juries and judges are another topic ..... Now, I ask anyone who has heard or read Klumb's remarks to the media throughout this ordeal, especially those last night, to somehow convince me that the professors would have "won" their case had a Klumb-led college board adjudicated the case.  As far as we know, we only have ONE firm advocate--Virginia C. Newton. As was demonstrated on WLOX and in other news items over the weekend, the professors are still taking the heat.  Shelby and minions are still on a mission to destroy their good names.  This is hurtful to the professors and to their families as they continue to feel the sting of Thames' guns.  I hope the bickering over the settlement dies soon--it appears to have waned here.  Let me just say that things could have gone much worse, had the board received the recs and made a decision.  We could have wholesaledly lost. We have supported these men since March 5.  They deserve our continued support.  We all know that, if they had their "druthers," they would rather be on campus performing the work that is their love.  Imagine how they feel, sitting at home, reading this message board, watching the news, feeling like they are still being attacked, only now also by their former defenders and many of their friends. If I were them, I would be heartbroken. Would any of us want to have Roy Klumb making a decision that would affect the rest of our lives and careers?  I, for one, say HELL no. NO QUARTER to the scoundrels. (I have to get to work--will check in this evening on replies.)"


There is much that is ill thought out in your message, and I can't imagine why you want to bring up the rightness or wrongness of S/G accepting the deal after discussion of it has already waned.


Nevertheless, while I sympathize completely with S/G and continue to respect and honor them after they accepted "the deal," I am compelled to say that doing so seems to have made the situation for the faculty much worse.


To begin with, we "know" that they were pressured by Judge Anderson, who apparently indicated that they would not get a favorable ruling from the IHL board no matter what his report said. This is a piece of salesmanship, as it's impossible to gauge the degree of embarrassment that would have been caused had S/G taken the case to fruition.


You report that the profs are still taking the heat, and you are dead right about that, but perhaps it is _because_ they folded in the negotiations and thus left themselves vulnerable to precisely the kind of attack that is continuing even today. This is in large measure a failure of counsel--Adelman may be a good lawyer, but his performance in this situation seems something less than good.  Is he a lawyer with no taste for confrontation?


No one ever attacked S/G for taking the deal. Everyone I know was disappointed, but did not blame Stringer or Glamser. The disappointment is that having leaned on the whole faculty and proclaimed the controversy a free speech issue, S/G folded their tents as a personal issue, securing for themselves comfortable resolutions, but not providing in any way for the faculty or the university. 


The other side of this view is that if the hearing had gone forward, the preposterous nature of Thames' gestapo tactics and policies and procedures would have been drawn into the public eye, perhaps even Thames himself would have been held up to cross examination (I'm not sure this was likely), a process that had every opportunity of splitting him open like the fat little piggy that he is, showing him to be sick and violent and hateful to such a degree that the IHL might have been _forced_ to remedy the situation in spite of itself.


The more the press and media know about Thames and the way he operates, the better off we all are, for the people out in the community are not stupid.  They know insanity when they see it.  Perhaps they truly believe professors don't work hard enough, but, if allowed to see Thames' in his full viloent temper, they could clearly see that the little boss man has taken leave of his senses.


The downside of the settlement is that when S/G gave up, they allowed Thames and his pack of wolves to maintain their unchallenged slots at the head of this failing university and its faculty, ensuring more trauma, more disgusting abuse of power, more vindictive behavior, the leading edge of which we've already seen in the Hanbury memo.


This is a seriously sick group of bedfellows we've got running this university, and they are in more complete control today than they were last Wednesday morning. That's the real price S/G and the rest of us are paying now.



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: TruthCannotHurtUs
""

I repeat again...Frank and Gary did not set themselves up as martyrs.  They are people with families they must support, and they did what they could do to "out" Shelby and his tactics (if they had truly wanted an easy way out, they would've taken SFT's retirement "deal" in the first place).  The IHL Board would have NEVER fired Thames, I do not believe, no matter what the outcome of the hearing.  If personal attacks on students and facist surveillance tactics aren't enough to convince the board that Shelby needs to go, then I can't imagine anything Frank or Gary or Mike Adelman could've said that would've made that a reality.


This hearing was about Frank and Gary's employment situation NOT the job performance of SFT.  As much as we would've like to see him fry, it just wasn't going to happen.  Others must take up the fight now...it was never going to be an "easy" out.  Stop blaming Frank and Gary, and get on with the business of getting rid of SFT.



__________________
educator

Date:
Permalink Closed

Count me in on the getting rid of SFT idea.


Lawsuits are painful, extremely painful.  I am proud of these men (Gary and Frank).  I am also proud of KRUMB for being so outspoken that he continually reminds the public about how inadequate he is to serve in his current position on the IHL. I also admire Jack/John/Johnny whatever Hanbury for sending out such a stupid memo that has now become public. Hope that little bit of high handedness gives him a few headaches and moments of regret.


The next big spectacle??? Graduation. If I were a student or faculty member denied my critical thinking skills I'd be dropping a few no quarters.



__________________
present professor

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Wonder
"I am assuming that G&S did nothing wrong wrt the SS #. I assume that a jury would find them innocent of wrongdoing. . . ."

I think you can pretty safely assume your assumptions are more than assumptions. The administration's lead witness and his documents did nothing to substantiate the charge that the ss numbers had been stolen. Gary and Frank's rebuttals were completely exculpatory. In the context of Mader's inadvertant release of the ss numbers to WDAM -- and the embarrassing affidavits from Randy Swan and Misty McDermitt -- the ss. numbers were a non-starter. This was the only solid accusation the Shelby team had. They then had to fall back on the shotgun accusation that the professors were "stirring up trouble from the very beginning . . . " This too was easily disposed.


This was an amazingly weak case for the prosecution -- I am amazed that the media can read otherwise. I suspect that some of WDAM's anger may actually stem from the way its was manipulated by the Mader machine (badly as it turned out).



__________________
TruthCannotHurt

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" Stop blaming Frank and Gary, and get on with the business of getting rid of SFT."

Please read my note again and see that I do not blame "Frank and Gary" but only recognize the effect of their accepting the deal.



__________________
Michael Kimber

Date:
Permalink Closed

Let's keep wearing our "I SUPPORT GLAMSER AND STRINGER" badges. The professors, their families, and everyone on both (all three?) sides of the issues need to know this now more than ever.

NO QUARTER!!!

__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Michael Kimber
"Let's keep wearing our "I SUPPORT GLAMSER AND STRINGER" badges. The professors, their families, and everyone on both (all three?) sides of the issues need to know this now more than ever. NO QUARTER!!!"

 


Excellent idea!



__________________
divine intervention

Date:
RE: A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should cons
Permalink Closed

Despite the fact that G/S were obviously strongly encouraged to accept some sort of deal by a very practical, very political Reuben Anderson, there must have been some divine intervention at play here. As it stands, they end up reinstated and compensated financially. If they had gone through with the hearing, Roy Klumb would have strong-armed the IHL board into firing them.

Even though this wasn't completely evident until Roy made his asinine commments Sunday, we can all thank God G/S ended up with at least a little money and some health insurance!

__________________
in the know

Date:
Permalink Closed

AMEN!

__________________
Frank Glamser

Date:
A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: divine intervention
"Despite the fact that G/S were obviously strongly encouraged to accept some sort of deal by a very practical, very political Reuben Anderson, there must have been some divine intervention at play here. As it stands, they end up reinstated and compensated financially. If they had gone through with the hearing, Roy Klumb would have strong-armed the IHL board into firing them.

Even though this wasn't completely evident until Roy made his asinine commments Sunday, we can all thank God G/S ended up with at least a little money and some health insurance!"


You won't get an argument on the divine intervention from me. On March 5 it felt like David and Goliath, a mismatch of biblical proportions. All pay and benefits were to stop on March 31. Then strange things began to happen. What are the odds of a 40-0 faculty senate no confidence vote or a 93% faculty no confidence vote? Has USM ever had a political student demonstration of over 1000 students? How often does a state attorney general step in to design an academic appeal hearing? How often does a respected retired supreme court justice preside over an academic hearing pro bono. How often do faculty members facing termination against all the resources of the state end up being paid for two years for staying away and promising not to say bad things?

Many things fell into line to keep us from the fiery furnace. The massive outpouring of support that Gary and I were the recipients of brought about a miracle. Time and again people I barely knew would come up to me and quietly say "You are in our prayers." No, you won't get an argument from me.



__________________
Reality Check

Date:
RE: A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should cons
Permalink Closed

This string seems to say many things, and I surely respect the feelings of Dr. Glamser. God bless you.

But, one of the things this string says, seems to be that it is very unlikely that SFT is going to be forced out no matter what he says or does or how much he states false information or mismanages or throws temper tantrums or breaks the law. It sure has no tie to how many "resolutions" the Faculty Sentate has. The Faculty Senate has been cut to shreds now, having zero influence over those who could remedy the situation, a superb RR job using lies and falsehoods the media refuses to question.

Thus, it can never get better.

It just does not matter to Klumb, the legislature, and the governor I supported, who I thought cared about the law and standards. It has been spun now even in the CL that G/S were crimminals who wasted taxpayer money. Klumb violtates every rule in the IHL book and brags that he will get a "second" term, maybe this time to dismantle Ole Miss and Mississppi State. We have mean people, politically powerful "locals" running the show and a puppet media who is willing to stand around while USM becomes a regional "college", lacking accreditation. They stand willing to accept the dictatorial management style which involves spying on the professional and personal lives of faculty on their "enemies" list.

It involves the great professors leaving and not coming here, and it is only a few years before it will begin affecting Oxford and Starkville. I see no favoritism of Klumb by alma mater, he has a vision.

I am beginning to think the judge was not so much corrupt as he was just doing the least the IHL would ever accept. That ain't gonna change.

I see, as Klumb said, nothing this AG will not just try to swallow, settle, and muddle on.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> A fact critics of Glamser/Stringer should consider
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard