Serious Question regarding Hanbury....

Date: May 6, 2004

Serious Question regarding Hanbury....

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lanny Mixon
"I know you guys are really happy to see him go, and probably rightfully so. But, here's what popped into my mind. Did Thames fire him because he blames Hanbury for screwing up the investigation into Glamser and Stringer? I have to believe that is part of it, don't know about you guys."

In SFT's mind - and he does know how to make paint - he is utterly blameless. But what's in SFT's mind very rarely equates to the truth. He lives in deNIAL

Date: May 6, 2004

Wasn't Hanbury answerable to the AG as the newly appointed university counsel?

Date: May 6, 2004

As we understand it, he was under the jurisdiction of the AG's office as of last week (still not sure the procedure). If this is true, then SFT couldn't have fired him...only the AG could do that.

We are happy to win this battle, but the war is still on. We won't be truly happy for the future of USM until SFT is out of the Dome.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

Shelby couldn't fire him. He was under the AG's umbrella. Looks like Hood has had enough of him...the memo did it.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"As we understand it, he was under the jurisdiction of the AG's office as of last week (still not sure the procedure). If this is true, then SFT couldn't have fired him...only the AG could do that. We are happy to win this battle, but the war is still on. We won't be truly happy for the future of USM until SFT is out of the Dome."

The AG probably had a HUGE PROBLEM with one of his associates instructing deans to ignore state and federal law.

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by:
"Shelby couldn't fire him. He was under the AG's umbrella. Looks like Hood has had enough of him...the memo did it."

I asked this before but didn't get an answer. Did he have to be confirmed to be under the AG's umbrella, or did they just slide him under?

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: Advocate
"I asked this before but didn't get an answer. Did he have to be confirmed to be under the AG's umbrella, or did they just slide him under?"

I am not sure that his position required Senate confirmation. I did a bill status check, and his name was not on any bill this term.

I think he probably had to undergo PEER review, though.

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lanny Mixon
"truth4usm/AH There's no reason for you to continue to bash my message board. It is beginning to make you look petty."

Believe me, even if I tried, I couldn't make myself look NEAR as petty as your board already looks! Plus I'm not bashing your board...all I said is that this is vindication for those who wish to see Shelby gone, and will hopefully shut up all the posters from your board who reguarly BASH this board.

Puh-leaze.

Date: May 6, 2004

Lanny

R u related to Bob Mixon, the man who was so vocal in getting Horace Fleming removed??

johan yssel

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lanny Mixon
"I know you guys are really happy to see him go, and probably rightfully so. But, here's what popped into my mind. Did Thames fire him because he blames Hanbury for screwing up the investigation into Glamser and Stringer? I have to believe that is part of it, don't know about you guys."

Lanny --

I used to be a regular visitor to ET so I trust that you are making a genuine inquiry.

Short answer: Yes. I think Hanbury is being made a scapegoat. And that is interesting to me because I have always thought that scapegoats were "innocents thrown to the wolves." In this case, better cliches would include, "Eats his own" or "no honor among thieves."

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by:
"Shelby couldn't fire him. He was under the AG's umbrella. Looks like Hood has had enough of him...the memo did it."

It is my understanding the the axe fell from the AG's office. SFT can NEVER admit that he may have made a poor hiring decision...otherwise, Lisa Mader would have been the first to go.

Also, The AG's office had been going through the HR office with a fine tooth comb prior to the hearing. Both Hanbury and Dvorak's depatures may have been a result of the AG's findings in HR.

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Neumann
" It is my understanding the the axe fell from the AG's office. SFT can NEVER admit that he may have made a poor hiring decision...otherwise, Lisa Mader would have been the first to go. Also, The AG's office had been going through the HR office with a fine tooth comb prior to the hearing. Both Hanbury and Dvorak's depatures may have been a result of the AG's findings in HR."

SFT may not admit, so I'll do it for him:

HEY, SHELBY! BAD HIRING DECISION!

Date: May 6, 2004

Is it definite yet that MD is also going? (I am keeping my fingers crossed, which makes it difficult to type.)

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lanny Mixon
"

Did Thames fire him because he blames Hanbury for screwing up the investigation into Glamser and Stringer?

I have to believe that is part of it, don't know about you guys."

The screw up was going after two senior tenured professors with good records and lots of friends for no good reason and telling your boss it was a slam dunk.

Date: May 6, 2004

I get that question quite alot. I guess it is becaue there are so few Mixon's and Bob and I move in some of the same circles.

I am not related to Bob Mixon, and I was somewhat of a supporter of Dr. Fleming at the time, having closely worked with him while I was Vice President of the IFC.

As I recall Dr Fleming was not terribly popular with the faculty either, being that there was a no confidence vote on the Senate table when he resigned.

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lanny Mixon
"I get that question quite alot. I guess it is becaue there are so few Mixon's and Bob and I move in some of the same circles.

I am not related to Bob Mixon, and I was somewhat of a supporter of Dr. Fleming at the time, having closely worked with him while I was Vice President of the IFC.

As I recall Dr Fleming was not terribly popular with the faculty either, being that there was a no confidence vote on the Senate table when he resigned.
"

I could be wrong Lanny as I wasn't on the Senate then, but I believe there was some informal discussion of a no confidence vote but I don't think it ever got farther than that. It is pretty standard in academia when things aren't going right for this kind of topic to come up (sort of like how often the subject of "impeachment" comes up in Congress). But it usually isn't very serious and it actually takes a great deal of effort to get a no confidence vote up. Having gone through the discussion last spring of a no confidence vote against Dr. Thames and then this March's successful vote, I can tell you that just becuase people were talking about it means almost nothing. It is such a huge move to take that step that most people will not go there unless the situation is very desperate -- which should be an indication of how bad things have gotten to be.

I've heard people say this about Horace and the faculty as a way essentially to say: "see, the faculty isn't happy about anything." But my feeling was always that with Horace that people were unhappy but not necessarily angry -- not nearly as angry as they are now. The other thing is I have never been able to seprate how much of the talk of "no confidence" was also promoted by athletic supporters, many of whom were unhappy with Horace for much different reasons. You'd probably know beter than I.

Speaking of athletics -- gotta go work out because I have a long night at the office ahead and then a long day down on the Gulf Coast tomorrow.

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lanny Mixon
As I recall Dr Fleming was not terribly popular with the faculty either, being that there was a no confidence vote on the Senate table when he resigned. "

This is absolutely untrue and I’m tired of seeing this rumor paraded as fact. I was on the Senate at the time and there was NEVER any serious discussion of a no confidence vote on Horace Fleming. There were disagreements with Fleming, but sane and reasonable people on the Senate knew how serious a no confidence vote was, and refused to let any such discussion reach that point.

In contrast, the no confidence vote on Shelby Thames was swift, decisive, and unanimous. I was also there that night. There was no celebration. It was a somber, sad occasion. These people were sane and reasonable as well, and I expect if they voted again today, the results would be the same.

Date: May 6, 2004

Can YOU believe I post on EagleTalk and am a LOYAL Eagle Clubber.

I don't think you can. You are so unaware of what you speak it kills me, but I think deep down you understand.

Hey Lanny, lots of people in the Athletic Department and LOTS of loyal, big spender Eagle Club people are with us...............we want the best for USM.

I am glad to see you here participating in democracy.

Go Eagles.

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Old Senator
" This is absolutely untrue and I’m tired of seeing this rumor paraded as fact. I was on the Senate at the time and there was NEVER any serious discussion of a no confidence vote on Horace Fleming. There were disagreements with Fleming, but sane and reasonable people on the Senate knew how serious a no confidence vote was, and refused to let any such discussion reach that point. In contrast, the no confidence vote on Shelby Thames was swift, decisive, and unanimous. I was also there that night. There was no celebration. It was a somber, sad occasion. These people were sane and reasonable as well, and I expect if they voted again today, the results would be the same. "

This is why INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY is important. Thank you, Old Senator, for bringing this information to light!

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Neumann
" Also, The AG's office had been going through the HR office with a fine tooth comb prior to the hearing. Both Hanbury and Dvorak's depatures may have been a result of the AG's findings in HR."

This part of your post slipped past me earlier. What's this about?

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Greedy
"Can YOU believe I post on EagleTalk "

Unless you are WOLE or Gary (can't remember the last initial), then no, I can't believe it. Those were the only 2 posters on Eagle Talk that made any sense at all.

Date: May 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Old Senator
"
... These people were sane and reasonable as well, and I expect if they voted again today, the results would be the same. "

Old Senator is absolutely correct. This "new senator" may be voting NO CONFIDENCE again tomorrow. It seems a board member (Klumb) needs us to vote again to convince him that the "evidence" presented at the "Thames' hearing" (G&S only got 30 minutes) did NOT change our minds. We may also use our PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE to advise Dr. Thames to be a "red-blooded, true American conservative, with families values man and resign.

Otherside

Date: May 6, 2004

Ever notice Lanny and other EagleTalk guys on here NEVER answer their own kind, their own bretheren.

Date: May 6, 2004

Trolls - Be Gone! Leave us alone. I'm tired of hearing your stupid comments. Go climb under a rock!

Date: May 6, 2004

I've heard that he was fired by the Attorney General, also that the AG took him on last week precisely in order to fire him. I hope that's the case. I hope Shelby fired him too, so that all the deans who think they can trust Shelby Thames will understand that he will sacrifice them in a nanosecond if it's to his advantage. I'm thinking of Dean Pood especially, who is rumored on the Board to be next in line for Hudson's seat: down you go when you become baggage, and don't say I didn't warn you.

quote:

Originally posted by: Lanny Mixon
"I know you guys are really happy to see him go, and probably rightfully so. But, here's what popped into my mind. Did Thames fire him because he blames Hanbury for screwing up the investigation into Glamser and Stringer? I have to believe that is part of it, don't know about you guys."

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: East R. Buni
""

Yes.

Date: May 6, 2004

I was THERE when Horace Fleming said to the Faculty Senate: "I hear rumors about a no confidence vote ... if you have a problem with me, please come and discuss it with me." Horace Fleming is a TRUE MAN and when there was unhappiness, he tackled them head on, like a MAN does. I am a major supporter of Fleming, and if you don't believe me, check out the letter that I wrote to the HA during the Fleming controversy which prompted Nicholson to call me and "explain" things to me. Why did he call me? Simply because I stated that the time has come to sue IHL and in particular, the College Board. And that, my respected ex colleagues and USM supporters is the ONLY way y'all are going to get rid of the gnome. IHL (with the exception of Newton) are yellower than the paint color that HRH is inventing. SUE THEM AND YOU WILL PREVAIL!!! Finally, the College Board got rid of Fleming because of "differences" in leadership style between them and Fleming. Why is the gnome still there? HE HAS NO DAMN STYLE WHATSOEVER

Very fondly
johan yssel

Date: May 6, 2004

As I recall when Fleming was coming up for review by the IHL, the Faculty Senate, Staff Council (remember them, where have they gone), SGA, and Graduate Student Council all came out with letters of support for Fleming and sent them to IHL. IHL chose as always to ignore the voice of the USM faculty, staff and students.

Fleming was offered only a one year contract (which he declined) instead of the standard four years because he went to bat for USM publicly. He questioned, in the media, why USM received less funding per student than Ole Miss and State. IHL wanted a President that would keep us in our place. Well, our place is "near 'bout" the bottom now.

Date: May 7, 2004

Yes, glumalum, that's right. Not only was there never any serious no-confidence discussion about Fleming, as Old Senator says, but the Senate approved a resolution asking the IHL Board to give Fleming a full contract. The discussion of that resolution was heated; there were many who disagreed with Fleming's policies, and many who approved of them. But the Senate united behind the belief that the IHL Board should not dismiss or shortchange him based only on the reports of a few influential people.

There had, in fact, been no concerted outcry from faculty, staff, or students. Many were very concerned, and rightly so, about his priorities. But the Board's move toward dismissal (which became the insulting offer of a one-year contract) was not based on the requests of campus constituencies (to whom, by the way, Fleming actually seemed to listen). As I recall the debate (and y'all correct me here, Senators and others, if you think I'm wrong), the key issue was: will we let the IHL Board act on such a key matter without consulting with the university community as a whole?

Yes, Faculty Senate, Staff Council and SGA all forwarded expressions of support for Fleming's continuation to the IHL Board. The Alumni Association wrote a completely noncommittal letter (they were deadlocked, I've heard). And we know what the Board did from there.

Don't take what I've said here as evidence that we shouldn't be writing and calling the Board. Rather my point is that our situation now is VERY different. The Board has to understand that this is NOT the same as the Fleming affair, and that the troubles here will not subside until their source, Shelby Thames, has been removed (or has stopped doing what he does--unimaginiable, I think).

NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace