keeping up the pressure on the Board

Date: May 9, 2004

keeping up the pressure on the Board

Date: May 9, 2004

Amen, Ellen!

Date: May 9, 2004

It may be harder now to "keep the pressure on" now that the real goal of IHL installing Thames is out of the bag on state wide television.

The admission by Thames that the IHL hired him to "clean house" and tear down means that he is only doing what he was hired to do. Those agreeing with that goal, all Ole Miss and Miss. State folks, were seven in number. I understand we lose two of them next week, but the four coming on board seem unlikely to disagree enough to reverse the two for ST to against ST.

Just some unpleasantry here to focus on.

The news media and this board needs to apply a lot of public pressure on Thames individually and IHL members in person as to why USM was singled out for such harse treatment, while the other schools are left like we used to be.

Ask Klumb WHY USM needed this tearing down while the others don't, even with USM teaches more hours in the classroom for much lower pay already.

The facts are out on this disparity, and it is not speculation, but black and white numbers.

Date: May 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Cleanhouse
"It may be harder now to "keep the pressure on" now that the real goal of IHL installing Thames is out of the bag on state wide television. The admission by Thames that the IHL hired him to "clean house" and tear down means that he is only doing what he was hired to do. Those agreeing with that goal, all Ole Miss and Miss. State folks, were seven in number. I understand we lose two of them next week, but the four coming on board seem unlikely to disagree enough to reverse the two for ST to against ST. Just some unpleasantry here to focus on. The news media and this board needs to apply a lot of public pressure on Thames individually and IHL members in person as to why USM was singled out for such harse treatment, while the other schools are left like we used to be. Ask Klumb WHY USM needed this tearing down while the others don't, even with USM teaches more hours in the classroom for much lower pay already. The facts are out on this disparity, and it is not speculation, but black and white numbers."

I agree. The students of this university should e outraged at this.

Date: May 9, 2004

Believe me, we are outraged by the degredation of our education. We came to this university for many reasons- some of us had no choice, others for the outstanding programs. Some of us stay for second or third degrees for the same reasons. But truth be told, it's no secret that USM has long been on the bottom of the totem pole as far as the IHL is concerned. One reason for this is the process of appointing the College Board members (whatever happened to those great "demand college board reform" stickers???)Another has been mentioned several times in other threads on this board. But by keeping pressure on the IHL and other government officials, we can let them know that we are not going to let them run our university into the ground. We have too many positives at USM to give up. I will do my best to be at the IHL meeting, and I urge anyone who is in state to do the same. our presence is noticed, believe me (Having gotten the evil eye from Klumb at the last one I attended!!!)

Date: May 9, 2004

Question -- why does this state not fund based on credit hour production? At least it was my understanding that you do not. At Memphis, one of my jobs was in IR, compiling a deal every semester called "Statistical Studies" -- just a little book that gave FTE, credit hour production, etc. broken out in a jillion ways, with five years of history for the data. This was all pulled from big green-bar reports. God help me if I got it wrong! EVERYTHING hinged on credit hour porduction. I was surprised that there didn't appear to be anything like that at USM. Then you could get a better handle on who's really doing the teaching. And apologies if this is old news to you folks.

Date: May 10, 2004

Remember, one of the first to feel the sting of Shelby (What's wrong with this door? It won't open. Try your key and see if it works) was the institutional statistics group.

And then Susan S. was only too happy to do her master's bidding and lie about the numbers to the state. Of course, she also took the fall, but did not get fired. Or even have her tenure questioned, although her actions clearly warrant a review of her tenure.

Shelby's motto is borrowed (and butchered) from one of the great old westerns, a line from The Duke, "Truth? Man, we don't need no stinking truth!"

Date: May 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Cleanhouse
"
The admission by Thames that the IHL hired him to "clean house" and tear down means that he is only doing what he was hired to do. Those agreeing with that goal, all Ole Miss and Miss. State folks, were seven in number. I understand we lose two of them next week, but the four coming on board seem unlikely to disagree enough to reverse the two for ST to against ST.
"

Does Thames really think that his mission is to destroy USM, or prepare it for a hostile takeover by another institution in the state system? (Roy Klumb may think it is, but that's a different matter.)

Granted, Thames is too egocentric to know the difference between aggrandizing the power of Shelby F. Thames and carrying out the mission of USM. He can't tell the difference between Thames Tech, or Polymer State, and a University of Southern Mississippi that is building on its genuine strengths.

But is Thames sincerely convinced that he was put in office to tear down USM so it can't pose a competitive threat to Ole Miss and Mississippi State? In his own mind, he is USM. He wouldn't tear himself down on purpose, would he?

It's time to advance a different perspective on Thames: as a gullible egomaniac who was put in place, not to build USM up, but to destroy it; as an unwitting tool of people who want to make sure that USM can no longer threaten their favored interests.

If Thames has to answer media questions about his role as the designated destroyer of USM, rifts will begin to appear amongst his supporters, maybe even between him and his political sponsors.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
" Does Thames really think that his mission is to destroy USM, or prepare it for a hostile takeover by another institution in the state system? (Roy Klumb may think it is, but that's a different matter.) Granted, Thames is too egocentric to know the difference between aggrandizing the power of Shelby F. Thames and carrying out the mission of USM. He can't tell the difference between Thames Tech, or Polymer State, and a University of Southern Mississippi that is building on its genuine strengths. But is Thames sincerely convinced that he was put in office to tear down USM so it can't pose a competitive threat to Ole Miss and Mississippi State? In his own mind, he is USM. He wouldn't tear himself down on purpose, would he? It's time to advance a different perspective on Thames: as a gullible egomaniac who was put in place, not to build USM up, but to destroy it; as an unwitting tool of people who want to make sure that USM can no longer threaten their favored interests. If Thames has to answer media questions about his role as the designated destroyer of USM, rifts will begin to appear amongst his supporters, maybe even between him and his political sponsors. Robert Campbell "

Ah Robert -- you give vent to my secret thoughts. I've said to friends that Shelby was appointed not to do a specific mission but because of who he already is . . . in other words influential folks on the Board didn't need to tell him what to do . . . they knew exactly how he would go about "improving" the university.

Date: May 10, 2004

Robert, I'm with ya on that one.