Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Dr. Doug Chambers' article (cc'd to Hanbury)
Post Info TOPIC: Dr. Doug Chambers' article (cc'd to Hanbury)
Fire Shelby


Status: Offline
Posts: 1140
Date:
Dr. Doug Chambers' article (cc'd to Hanbury)
Permalink Closed

Title: "USM's Jack Hanbury - Risk Management or Just Risky Hatchet-Man?
 
In the spring of 2003, Dr. Thames hired the former law associate of the husband of the then-newly hired Vice-President for Research as USM's new "director of risk management."  For a salary of $140,000 per year, since his hire Jack Hanbury has averaged at least one startlingly poor misjudgment every month.  This legal eagle's "risk management" has resulted in at least a dozen major lapses in normal university best-practices.
 
    As a whole, they exemplify the poor judgment that has characterized Dr. Thames' administration of USM.  In Hanbury's case, they constitute a kind of generalized malpractice and should be cause for concern.
 
    Added up, Hanbury's form of risk management has continually put USM at risk.  Rather than "managing" risk he has generated or even engineered increasing levels of risk; at least a dozen mistakes over the past twelve months have continually resulted in adverse publicity, the potential for damaging lawsuits, and discord and conflict.  This is what $140,000 per year of expert legal advice buys?  Avoiding these kinds of malpractice is precisely why the State pays for a University Counsel, with the authority of a special assistant attorney general of Mississippi.  Hanbury's job was created specifically for himself, and USM is the only university in the state with such a bureaucrat.  Why?
 
    In at least 12 different issues, variance from legally and professionally accepted university best-practices has put USM at increased risk.  And these are only the ones which are publicly known.  And they do not include personal lapses, such as at football games.
 
    In 2003, official actions included the risk of breach-of-contract in the arbitrary termination of Prof. Terry Kinney, who had been promised tenure upon his hire as Director of the School of Human Performance and Recreation.  But the paperwork was not properly filed and when Dr. Kinney apparently got on the wrong side of Dr. Thames, he was peremptorily fired.  Why?  Because Kinney technically did not have tenure, and technically was not on tenure-track.  He is suing of course.
 
    The risk of the appearance of nepotism in the hire of Mark Dvorak as the highly paid director of human resources, compounded by Dr. Thames giving the Dvoraks his own personal house for their use, should have been obvious. And yet, as risk manager, presumably Jack Hanbury approved.
 
    Hanbury personally supervised the Faculty Handbook revision fiasco, in which his proposed changes were widely criticized as violating important AAUP-recommended best-practices, evidencing poor judgment regarding higher education law and practice.  After the consequent public controversy, the new Handbook still awaits approval.
 
    Also in 2003 the startlingly risky Alcohol & Drug Policy, which Hanbury reportedly wrote, was widely seen as prima facie unconstitutionally vague, and immediately faced the threat of a federal lawsuit.  After much public controversy it was suspended.  If the policy is trotted back out, one can be sure that the risk of a major federal lawsuit and more negative publicity will return.
 
    The apparently widescale email surveillance of some faculty, brought out by Dr. Thames's testimony in the special hearing last week, hints at the risk of abuse of administrative oversight.   It is also clear that the administration was surveilling Dr. Gary Stringer's personal email long before Jack Hanbury supposedly began his official investigation in the dispute over the questionable credentials of Dr. Dvorak - if this was the case then Dr. Thames runs the risk of having committed perjury last week.
 
    The Faculty Senate should promptly demand a list of all electronic surveillance activities overseen by Jack Hanbury, and related administrative orders by Dr. Thames.
 
    The selective and extra-processual mid-year raises of 2003-04, in which a select few faculty got 8% raises while the inner administrative circle got raises of ca.15%, obviously posed the risk of the appearance of favoritism.  And the fact that Dr. Thames's daughter, Prof. Dana Thames, was awarded a reported (by WDAM) raise of 15% obviously suggests the appearance of nepotism.
 
    According to a recently released email from Jack Hanbury to the academic deans, dated 30 April 2004, after some of the Deans released to the Faculty Senate information regarding these unusual mid-year raises, Hanbury explicity threatened them with accusations of "grossly insubordinate action" because the Deans did not simply abide by his legal opinion.  Obviously Hanbury's opinions are not expert; and as the Faculty Senate was acting pursuant to an FOIA request, Hanbury's actions are obstructing a legal obligation to provide information in the public domain.  This is not a private university.
 
    One of Hanbury's most telling malpractices was in the administration's case against Drs. Glamser and Stringer.  The charge of "insubordination" for their refusals to answer questions demanded of them by Hanbury late in the afternoon of March 4th, which were perfectly legal refusals, and then using those refusals in part to fire them early the next morning, put the University at serious legal risk.  And of course the entire fiasco risked not just one but two major lawsuits if it had not been settled as it was.
 
    Furthermore, in the last few weeks rumors have been flying that Dr. Thames was "looking into" abolishing the Faculty Senate.  Presumably this means relying on Jack Hanbury's legal advice, as risk manager.  But why even consider such a risky move?  Perhaps because the Senate has properly turned its full authority to investigating the circumstances of Dr. Dvorak's hire to begin with?  By implication, Hanbury's presumed support for such a move once again would violate accepted AAUP-defined best-practices for institutions of higher learning.  Very risky indeed, especially as USM concludes its current re-accreditation process.
 
    Last but not least, the effective (if inefficient) usurpation of Mr. Lee Gore's role of University Counsel has put USM at the risk of continuing legal advice from someone (unlike Gore) whose judgment is demonstrably questionable, or at least proven suspect.  Prior to his hire, just how much experience did Jack Hanbury have in this field of law?  What qualified him to be a "director of risk management" at a major state university?  Was his position advertised?  What were the circumstances of his hire?
 
    USM deserves better, especially for the exorbitant salary of $140,000 per year.  The taxpayers of Mississippi deserve better.  The Attorney General's Office deserves better.  As the ultimate controlling legal authority, the IHL Board deserves better.  Is this acceptable risk management, or simply risking an incompetent legal hatchet-man?
 
--Dr. Douglas B. Chambers
Assistant Professor
History Department
USM
 
CAUTION: As was revealed in hearings held at the USM campus on April 28, 2004, all email is subject to monitoring by the Office of the University President. Since he has used this authority to attempt to fire two tenured professors, please be aware that anything you say in an email sent to a USM email address is subject to be read by third parties and possibly disclosed to the public.

__________________
lvn

Date:
Permalink Closed

Wow!  I just came in from mailing a letter to the governor, copy to Rich Campbell.  Wish I seen this first. 


 



__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

Fire Shelby and Doug Chambers,

When this article is available in linkable form, I will link to it from my latest post on Liberty and Power. As a comprehensive indictment of Hanbury, it can't be beat.

(My apologies if it is already available elsewhere on the Fire Shelby site--for the last two hours I've been able to access only the message board.)

Robert Campbell

__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

I found the linkable version of Doug Chambers' article on the site, so it can now be accessed by readers of Liberty and Power.


Robert Campbell



__________________
Old Librarian

Date:
Permalink Closed

Everyone should print out Doug's eloquant letter. Send a copy to IHL, Individual IHL Board Members and Media with a statement that You concur with Doug's analysis - AND - make a plea that USM's administrative abuses be investigated - and soon. I've said it many times here on this message board - Write, Write, Write.  [ Thanks, Neighbor Doug , well said ]

__________________
educator

Date:
Permalink Closed

Doug, cudos to you in all of your eloquence.  USM is lucky to have you. I'm forwarding your words to about 200 colleagues nationwide who continue to stay fascinated with the USM debacle.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Dr. Doug Chambers' article (cc'd to Hanbury)
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard