I just sent off a copy of Jim Hollandsworth's wonderful letter (below) to the Alumni Board.  This letter is one of the best brief anti-SFT (pro-USM) arguments I have seen; it seems especially calculated to appeal to the typical SFT supporter.  Here is is again:

USM should be run like a business. Having said that, let me explore some ramifications that spring from this assumption.

I see today that Thames has created a University Council to “improve communication across every facet of our campus.” Once again, Thames has missed the point. The problems at USM are not those of communication. Most students and faculty know very well what he is doing, and, apparently, he knows very well what they think of what he is doing. The problems at USM stem from poor management. If Thames wants to “make our university stronger,” he needs to spend less time trying to convince people that he is doing a good job and more time making changes to correct fundamental errors he has made as an administrator. To that end, he could start by shaking up his management team.

If you were an investor with a substantial holding in the USM corporation, how you rate the return on your investment after two years? Has the corporation’s product, education, flourished under the leadership of this management team? Are customers satisfied with the product, and what are the projections for a growth in sales? Are the factories that produce this product running efficiently? Are manufacturing costs low, and is productivity high? Does the corporation have a stable workforce? Is the corporation able to recruit new workers with skills comparable to those who retire or leave? Finally, would a business in the “real world” tolerate two years of missteps, reversals, and controversy without changing a single person among its executive leadership?

Doubtlessly, some people will answer these questions with a resounding yes. Others, however, will conclude that USM as a state university with great potential has fallen behind its competition under the leadership of this management team. Many people think so, yet the same people who promised us efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation a year and a half ago are still there. Apparently, at least one cohort on campus is against change, but it is not the faculty.

Given this assessment, one should ask, what is Thames going to accomplish by getting a group of people to sit around the table and talk to the people who got us in this fix? Although opinion pieces in newspapers seem to miss the point, Thames’s door is not open even when he says it is. The notion that it is now up to the faculty to step forward with good-will and short memories ignores two years of previous attempts rebuffed and ridiculed. Unfortunately, many of us who post to this web site can say; been there, done that! It didn’t work before, why should it work now?

NO QUARTER!

Jim Hollandsworth

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Just got my first angry response from an Alumni Board member, who suggested that I should "get a life" and "give it a rest."  I wonder if this is typical of the kind of thoughtfulness that exists among the board members?"

---

Care to give us a clue as to who responded this way so we can make sure not to vote for them in the future?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Just got my first angry response from an Alumni Board member, who suggested that I should "get a life" and "give it a rest."  I wonder if this is typical of the kind of thoughtfulness that exists among the board members?"

---

I'm pleased to report that when I responded to the board member's note, he in turn responded to my response in a much more civil way.  He claims to be open-minded about the situation (although skeptical that removing SFT will solve anything), and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives.  What has this taught me?  I guess it has taught me to hope that even people who at first seem quite closed-minded are not beyond reach.  Therefore, I encourage others to keep trying to reach out to as many people as possible, even if they at first seem on "the other side." 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" I'm pleased to report that when I responded to the board member's note, he in turn responded to my response in a much more civil way.  He claims to be open-minded about the situation (although skeptical that removing SFT will solve anything), and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about his motives.  What has this taught me?  I guess it has taught me to hope that even people who at first seem quite closed-minded are not beyond reach.  Therefore, I encourage others to keep trying to reach out to as many people as possible, even if they at first seem on "the other side."   "

---

Our new motto could be:

"FS Message Board members:  opening one closed mind at a time"

Here's a message of thanks I just sent off to her.  Her email address can be found in the list above.

 

Dear Ms. Montague,

Thank you VERY MUCH for your letter in The Hattiesburg American asking President Shelby Thames to step down.  I sincerely believe that the only way USM will put the current mess behind it and begin to rebuild its reputation within the state, region, and nation will be for President Thames to return to his true calling, which is as a scientist.  His brief tenure as president has done profound damage to the university, and things are only likely to get worse when the SACS accreditation team makes its visit and begins to document what has been happening at USM.

Again, thank you for the courage and good sense your letter displays.

Between now and the Board meeting-letters and emails, please.The alumni association needs to be questioning, at the least, how what has transpired so far under this admin. has been helpful to USM as a comprehensive competitive university(read Ole Miss and State)..