Having read comments here and in the morning paper concerning the so-called things that Shelby Thames has done in the last week to help us heal (or perhaps that's a typo, maybe them mean "heel"), I feel compelled to comment (again).

The president's university council is being sold to the public as a communication line between students, staff, and faculty so that Shelby Thames can listen to our concerns.  Ironically, in his most recent open letter published in a variety of places, he says he is already doing that!  I'm sorry, I guess I am just dense, but this isn't making any sense.

The president's university council is not going to be comprised of elected individuals but appointed ones.  This just gives Shelby Thames another opinion expressed by his hand-picked people.  How in the world can this be interpreted as an effort to improve communication and put us on the road to healing?

How many times must the faculty, staff, and students say that we already have ways to communicate to Shelby Thames.  What in the world are Faculty Senate, Graduate Council, Academic Council, Council of Chairs, and other similar duly-elected bodies doing?  They have been canvassing their constituents for opinions and sending consistent and clear messages to Shelby Thames since May 2002.  Staff Council speaks for staff.  The SGA is SUPPOSED to speak for students.

The removal of Hanbury is sold as another healing move by Shelby Thames, I suppose.  OK.  But, because hiring practices have not been reformed, we still are waiting to see what happens.  This is a beginning, not a resolution of the problem.

That letter from Shelby Thames, I suppose, is also supposed to be some sorth of gesture of healing?  I certainly didn't read his annual report to the College Board as anything but just that.  In fact, at the reading of the letter at Faculty Senate yesterday, I followed along with the printed version and underlined all the factually correct and corroborated statements in that letter.  Try it yourself!  I'd appreciate a full audit of this university and perhaps we can say that Shelby Thames has advanced the financial health of USM. 

I was particularly offended by his reference to incentives for faculty with his mid-year raise debacle. 

Finally, Lisa Mader suggests that Shelby Thames has made an effort in the last week to reunite the USM community.  All I can say after suffering two years of Shelby Thames is, "Too little, too late."

Amy L. Young, Associate Professor, Anthropology

The phrase "administrative changes that have occurred" leaves it up to interpretation who is responsible for them.

It seems more likely to me that Hanbury was canned by Jim Hood, but Thames doesn't dare let anyone know that the firing wasn't his own idea.  On the other hand, if he comes out and says that it was his idea to fire Hanbury, he can be proved wrong.

Meanwhile, still no word about Mark Dvorak, and what's happening to him?

Robert Campbell

Lee Gore was actually the individual who wrote up the settlement.  I watched upstairs at the end of the hearings and it was Gore.

But doesn't it seem strange that the Hanbury memo accusing deans of grossly insubordinate actions puts both Hanbury and Thames at risk for "ordering" deans to break the law?  I would guess the AG could figure that out.  I know we are being told that Thames didn't know about the memo, but the memo seemed clear from Hanbury's perspective.

I think that the university community deserves an explanation about why Hanbury is leaving.  Thames wasn't shy about giving his opinions about Glamser and Stringer!

I have been reading all of your post for several days now and I admire your cause.  When I was at USM I worked in Shelby's lab (that's a whole story unto itself, but suffice it to say there is a reason that Sherwin Williams or any other paint companies have not offered him a job in upper mgt and it has everything to do with being able to inspire people) and was very concerned about him becoming President.  Sadly, those concerns that I expressed have become reality.  I have a feeling that many of the alumni a starting to become dismayed with his lack of leadership ability.

Anyway, I can pretty much confirm that Hanbury was toast before the hearings.  Keep up the fight!