Hanbury Responds

Date: May 3, 2004

Hanbury Responds

Date: May 3, 2004

Go to WDAM.com and look for the heading:

Cleverest thing I've seen at DAM in a long time.

Date: May 3, 2004

this is a repeat question, but I cant find the answer. How is Jack short for John. Why does USM's webpage list him as John and not Jack.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: flyonthewall
"this is a repeat question, but I cant find the answer. How is Jack short for John. Why does USM's webpage list him as John and not Jack."

John F. Kennedy was called Jack.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: flyonthewall
"this is a repeat question, but I cant find the answer. How is Jack short for John. Why does USM's webpage list him as John and not Jack."

It's just sort of a common nickname among some Johns (er...I know...there's a joke in there somewhere). Just think of JFK. Not that there's really any comparison between Jack Kennedy and Jack "the ripper" Hanbury, but...

Date: May 3, 2004

yeah.. i didn't think about that. I wonder if he started using the "Jack" name when he moved here

Date: May 3, 2004

All good ideas, guys, but I'm going with it being short for JACKA**. Not to put down any donkeys with that statement, though....

Date: May 3, 2004

Oh, I think we understand the context in which this officious piece of attempted coercion appears; but even if we could allow, for the sake of argument, that Jack/John Hanbury is telling the truth here, what explains the arrogant jackbooted tough guy in-your-face eat-sh**-or-die language of the letter to the deans? Clearly, it's still Do as I say or suffer the consequences, even if I tell you to break the law. Jeez, and I was ready to heal: but I won't break the laws of the land for Hanbury or anybody else, and nobody else should.

This is worse than it was before Thames was humiliated at the hearing---is this his revenge? Heretofore we've mostly dealt with moral and professional issues, even though Gary and Frank were being accused of implied illegalities; now there are indeed legal issues that they are creating. The ham-handed language of the letter to the deans clearly says that he and his boss are not to be bound by any "settlement" that reduces his power to control us by intimidation and coercion. The IHL Board, even Roy Klumb, should be as furious as the rest of us are over this arrogant breach of the peace the "settlement" was to have brought. How can we put the feud behind us if we have to shut up? No quarter.

quote:

Originally posted by: ram
"From the WDAM website: J. Hanbury sez: You need to understand the context in which this email was written. The Faculty Senate requested the names of the individuals recommended for mid-year raises. This is quite different from the names of those who actually received raises. It is my opinion that this information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. My concern was that disclosing this information could have exposed the university to liability and did expose the deans to personal liability."

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: ram
"From the WDAM website: J. Hanbury sez: You need to understand the context in which this email was written. The Faculty Senate requested the names of the individuals recommended for mid-year raises. This is quite different from the names of those who actually received raises. It is my opinion that this information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. My concern was that disclosing this information could have exposed the university to liability and did expose the deans to personal liability."

Quite a difference in the tone of this e-mail to WDAM and that of the original e-mail to the Deans, eh?

I can't quite figure the acutal exposure for the Deans to which Mr. Hanbury refers. If someone who received a recommendation actually got it, where's the problem? On the other hand, if someone was recommended for a raise but did not get it, the administration might have to explain why the Dean's recommendation was overruled. Okay, that might be exposure for the university (i.e., the administration), but where's the exposure for the Dean? And why, for heaven's sake, would consulting one's own attorney increase that alleged exposure?

Funny, I just don't sense any of this concern for the Deans' wellbeing in Hanbury's original memo.

Date: May 3, 2004

§ 25-61-15. Penalty for wrongful denial of access to record.

Any person who shall willfully and knowingly deny to any person access to any public record which is not exempt from the provisions of this chapter shall be liable civilly in a sum not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00), plus all reasonable expenses incurred by such person bringing the lawsuit.

SOURCES: Laws, 1983, ch. 424, § 8, eff from and after July 1, 1983.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Grasshopper
"§ 25-61-15. Penalty for wrongful denial of access to record. Any person who shall willfully and knowingly deny to any person access to any public record which is not exempt from the provisions of this chapter shall be liable civilly in a sum not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00), plus all reasonable expenses incurred by such person bringing the lawsuit. SOURCES: Laws, 1983, ch. 424, § 8, eff from and after July 1, 1983."

Ah, $100 huh? Maybe that's why I've heard that SFT and the henchcronies decided they would rather just pay the fine than provide the information. If one of the Deans recommended a raise for a person who ultimately did not get it, then the university might have to answer for that. That might prove uncomfortable and expensive, especially if the person recommended appeared to be passed over for unacceptable reasons such as race, gender, religion or some other protected class.

Date: May 3, 2004

They would have to pay the fine and turn over the records by court order and possibly pay attorneys' fees.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"They would have to pay the fine and turn over the records by court order and possibly pay attorneys' fees."

The incentive for pursuing legal action would have to be the information sought, not the cash. Definately NOT a punitive fine. And nobody would know whether attorneys' fees would be awarded until the lawsuit is over (and possibly appeals, too). That might mean that the Faculty Senate would have to bankroll a lawsuit to get the requested information, or find an attorney willing to take a chance on fees or donate the time.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"The incentive for pursuing legal action would have to be the information sought, not the cash. Definately NOT a punitive fine. And nobody would know whether attorneys' fees would be awarded until the lawsuit is over (and possibly appeals, too). That might mean that the Faculty Senate would have to bankroll a lawsuit to get the requested information, or find an attorney willing to take a chance on fees or donate the time."

Class Action

Date: May 4, 2004

"The Faculty Senate requested the names of the individuals recommended for mid-year raises. This is quite different from the names of those who actually received raises." - Jack Hanbury quote

Wasn't it widely reported in the media that the deans made the final raise decisions? Did Jack Hanbury just reveal and confirm another LIE???

Bad decision, lie, cover up - repeat the cycle!

Noel Polk, aren't they running out of toes?

From the WDAM website referenced above:

"So much for the healing of wounds at Southern Miss. The flap over monitoring e-mails at the university took a different twist Monday. An e-mail from the administration to college deans is now raising eyebrows.

The same day the College Board approved a settlement between university President Shelby Thames and professors Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer, the university's risk manager Jack Hanbury sent this e-mail to college deans:

I have been advised that a couple of you have consulted personal counsel and decided to give the FS the requested information regardless of my legal opinion and Dr. Thames' instructions. The last I heard, Dr. Thames was your boss, not some nebulous "outside counsel." Quite simply, regardless of what you or your misguided personal counsel think, the law means you take your orders from Dr. Thames and it is not up to you to decide to do otherwise. You are insulated from personal liability for doing so.
I have informed Dr. Thames of your grossly insubordinate action.

The Faculty Senate had asked deans for more information regarding mid-year raises given some faculty members. Apparently, a couple of the deans sent the requested information, prompting Hanbury's e-mail.

Late Monday, Hanbury e-mailed News 7 with this response about his message to the deans:

You need to understand the context in which this email was written. The Faculty Senate requested the names of the individuals recommended for mid-year raises. This is quite different from the names of those who actually received raises. It is my opinion that this information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. My concern was that disclosing this information could have exposed the university to liability and did expose the deans to personal liability."

Date: May 4, 2004

I'm not so sure that Hanbury is wrong here wrt the deans and the FOIA. It is better for such requests to be handled through a central office, I think. And it goes to show how lousy a communicator he is and how bad the situation is that I still think his email is a piece of nasty work.

Thames needs to be a leader. The situation he has gotten himself into--his bad decision making and his porr choice of an inner circle--has made it nearly impossible for him to lead effectively. USM cannot rid itself of an entire body of faculty, much as Thames might like to. The best solution for IHL is to rid the university of the president and his cronies and replace him with someone who can *lead*.

Even supporters of Thames have to acknowledge that his ability to lead has been seriously undermined by these events.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: Wonder
"I'm not so sure that Hanbury is wrong here wrt the deans and the FOIA. It is better for such requests to be handled through a central office, I think."

Faculty Senate attempted to do so...through the OFfice of the President. But said president referred FS to the Deans. Problem is, the deans were ordered not to comply with FOIA requests.

It's kinda like when you have a problem with your computer. You call the computer company. The receptionist refers you to the tech department. The tech department says you should talk to customer service. Customer service says they can't help you until they get clearance from the tech department.

Handing off...hoping you will get frustrated and just give up. That's not what the FS plans to do, though. We shall see this when the results of the vote come in Friday night.

Date: May 4, 2004

I see what you mean about diversion tactics and handing off. It's just that the former administrator in me tends to prefer centralization, especially when it comes to releasing information.

When I ran a tutoring program, my tutors were under orders not to discuss the students they tutored with faculty and to direct the faculty to me if they had questions. I see this as similar. There are confidentiality issues, and I preferred that the buck stopped with me.

Hanbury needs to go for *so* many reasons, but maybe not this one? That's all I'm saying.

Date: May 4, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: ram
"From the WDAM website: J. Hanbury sez: You need to understand the context in which this email was written. The Faculty Senate requested the names of the individuals recommended for mid-year raises. This is quite different from the names of those who actually received raises. It is my opinion that this information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. My concern was that disclosing this information could have exposed the university to liability and did expose the deans to personal liability."

I wish an attorney would provide some insights on the original e-mail sent to the deans as well as Hanbury's "clarification." However, I have some thoughts, which should be regarded as speculation rather than fact.

The e-mail states, "Quite simply, regardless of what your or your misguided personal counsel think the law means you take your orders from Dr. Thames and it is not up to you to decide to do otherwise." (Obviously, the lessons of Enron, etc. are lost on Mr. Hanbury, et. al.) And "You are insulated from personal liability for doing so." I believe that this statement is disingenuous. Typically, a lawsuit would name the university along with certain individuals, a dean and/or provost, for example. In defending itself, the university usually elects to defend the named individuals as well. However, if for example the university determines that the individual was acting outside the scope of his duties, the individual would have to retain counsel at his own expense. Thus, if you are a current administrator at USM, where getting out of favor with the president and his entourage is rather commonplace, you are a fool to assume that the university will defend you. It is,therefore, prudent to seek advice from a personal attorney. Such occurrences are among the costly consequences when the level of institutional trust is virtually non-existent as it is at USM.

In his clarification, Hanbury says "My concern was that disclosing this information coud have exposed the university to liability and did [italics mine] expose the deans to personal liability." Of course, some deans obviously concluded that not disclosing the information could have exposed the university and themselves to liability. However, the ominous part is the "and did expose the deans to personal liability." It is clear to me that Hanbury is saying that if a dean is sued over this matter, he or she will not receive legal assistance from the university. This warning is consistent with my previous paragraph.

If you are an administrator at USM and subject to lawsuits, the e-mail and clarification should make you very uncomfortable.

Date: May 4, 2004

Fire Shelby

Date: May 4, 2004

RE: Hanbury Responds

Date: May 4, 2004

Faze2,

Thank you for digging up the crime-reporting provision of the IHL by-laws.

It's conclusive evidence that Thames and Klumb were blowing smoke on this particular issue.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 4, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Faze2, Thank you for digging up the crime-reporting provision of the IHL by-laws. It's conclusive evidence that Thames and Klumb were blowing smoke on this particular issue. Robert Campbell"

So . . . . hmmm . . the reason Kulmb can claim there was a crime is because the professors were removed from campus. Shelby all along has indicated that he felt what they did was serious enough to necessitate this action and in the middle of the semester. The administration can now claim it took the humane way out: there was a crime committed but but university administration, in its benificence, has let the two professors off the hook now that they are no longer a threat. Nice spin

Date: May 4, 2004

Stephen,

What happened to Thames' (and Klumb's) obligation to talk to the local DA about the crime?

At most universities, you could conclude that the administration didn't talk to the local DA because they would rather hush up a violation of the law by someone they didn't like than incur negative publicity for the university.

I know of some instances like that at Clemson, and I've heard of comparable stuff elsewhere.

But Thames doesn't really operate on the principle of avoiding negative publicity. As I pointed out on Liberty and Power today, Dvorak and Thames and the gang have actually kept the spotlight on the problems with her vita by constantly bloviating to the media, threatening to sue, claiming Glamser and Stringer were on a witchhunt, yadda yadda yadda.

Besides, no one on the Thames side has claimed they were being generous to Glamser and Stringer by not seeking their criminal prosecution. And no one on the Thames side could be convincing, when pretending to be generous to opponents. They wanted to fire G and S, humiliate them, bleed them financially, crush them essentially...so why not prosecute, if they thought they had anything that would interest the DA?

Robert

PS. What's the best hypothesis about the leak to the media about Dvorak's vita, back on January 16th? Any connection with a hypothesis previously floated on this board about the source of the envelope that appeared under Frank Glamser's door on December 12?