Klumb and Klumber

Date: May 3, 2004

Klumb and Klumber

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Let's try to keep the roles of Roy Klumb and Shelby Thames in perspective."

First, this gets my vote for best topic title of the week (and the week has just started). Excellent bit o' wit, Dr Campbell!

Second, I think the perspective isn't very complex. Klumb is being Thames' proxy in the press to permit extended character assassination without violating the explicit terms of the agreement. My guess is that Adelman et al simply overlooked the board as a party & should have included all board members in the applicable section of the agreement. The settlement is, as I pointed out last night, one sided on this: G&S agreed not to sue board members, but there is nothing to prevent board members from "talking out of school" on the matter.

Since there is no "gag order" on the board, I sincerely hope that Virginia Newton responds to Klumb. Perhaps other board members who have a modicum of decency & fairness will speak up, too.

As far as complaining to AG Hood, forget it. He's already made it clear which side he comes down on. All we should do about him is remember not to punch his chad in the next election.

Date: May 3, 2004

Invictus is most likely wrong about this.

I can see three legal violations and I am not even a lawyer.

1) Klumb likely DID violate the settlement terms which would be a legal violation. Why shouldn't the gag order apply to the board? It applies to all parties involved does not it not? And did not the board have to sign off and approve the settlement? Hence they become, I would think, a party to the agreement. When a board member, future president, attacks one of the parties that would be a violation of the agreement on its face.

2) Furthermore, as part Klumb's job, viz a viz, the state constitution, and here Jim's posting of the ethics code to which Klumb is sworn is invaluable, Klumb cannot say what he did. Indeed, I would think no clearer example of an ethics violation would be possible than his performance last night. This should be a matter for law today. Which is to say someone somewhere should get some papers served on this guy for violating his charge as a member of the college board.

3) He lied about Frank and Gary and in the law that is called libel and slander. Again, papers could be served on the guy today. Enough with kangeroo courts and verbal bluster. Its time to go to court.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" First, this gets my vote for best topic title of the week (and the week has just started). Excellent bit o' wit, Dr Campbell! Second, I think the perspective isn't very complex. Klumb is being Thames' proxy in the press to permit extended character assassination without violating the explicit terms of the agreement. My guess is that Adelman et al simply overlooked the board as a party & should have included all board members in the applicable section of the agreement. The settlement is, as I pointed out last night, one sided on this: G&S agreed not to sue board members, but there is nothing to prevent board members from "talking out of school" on the matter. Since there is no "gag order" on the board, I sincerely hope that Virginia Newton responds to Klumb. Perhaps other board members who have a modicum of decency & fairness will speak up, too. As far as complaining to AG Hood, forget it. He's already made it clear which side he comes down on. All we should do about him is remember not to punch his chad in the next election."

I agree with Invictus here: Klumb indicated he hadn't talked to Shelby in a month. But I am sure he has talked to Mader and perhaps to Dvorak. He is definitely acting as assassin to neutralize the damage to the President by declaring (in the face of contrary evidence) that the professors are criminals. This morning the Clarion Ledger challenged the settlement on the basis of the waste of taxpayer money. But rather than blaming Thames it also accused the professors of embarking on a vengeful action that was quite possibly criminal. The campaign to criminalize these men is sticking. Not only is that iunfair to them, but the larger lesson to be learned here is that you can come away with a victory (or pretty damn near) and still have your integrity shredded. I think to most of us teaching that is more important than money: credibility is pretty much all most of us have. That is why the Klumb deal is so important to challenge because it continues the intimidation by proxy.

Date: May 3, 2004

Does MS have a State Ethics Commission? Perhaps a formal complaint can be lodged with that body.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Does MS have a State Ethics Commission? Perhaps a formal complaint can be lodged with that body. "

In answer to my own question, here's the relevant website:

http://www.ethics.state.ms.us/miss.htm

I will also post this address on a separate thread.