Hudson Misdeeds

Date: May 11, 2004

Hudson Misdeeds

Date: May 11, 2004

i believe Hudson is the administrator that attempted to charge a retired faculty a $10,000 donation to USM before he would process said faculty's emiritus status paperwork.

Date: May 11, 2004

They've got,

We need a compilation of the evidence against Hudson, kept strictly separate from pro-Dvorak or even pro-Thames agendas.

You're off to a good start.

I'd like to know what people who know the inner workings of USM think about this particular charge:

Hudson is widely beleived to be the source of the package placed under Glamser's door [on December 12, 2003]. This was to strike at Dvorak because Hudson's position was weak over the enrollment scandal.

I first heard this charge on the board here, before the April 28 hearing. Which meant that it circulated before Gary Stringer's previous investigative efforts were widely known, or the Thames crew's previous spying on him was widely suspected.

The Thames position at the hearing (at least by implication) was that the envelope under the door either didn't exist, or was put there by Gary Stringer.

The Hudson theory attributes a plausible motive to Hudson. But it requires him to be providing evidence against Angie Dvorak that was already (largely) available from other sources. Would Hudson have been in a position to know that? Would he have cared if he did?

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

I'll add that if Hudson did put the envelope under Frank Glamser's door, did he have any idea that it could lead to Glamser being fired?

And did he care if it did?

Robert Campbell

Date: May 11, 2004

The packet under Glamser's door wasn't the only one. There was another packet about someone else in the dome circulating even earlier--I know because I got it in the mail. And I'm a complete nobody. Never did figure out how I got the honor.

Date: May 12, 2004

You Wrote: 3) Hudson sliced the throat of Jay Grimes in an effort to become the only Provost. Hudson managed to blame Grimes for problems on the coast that Hudson actually caused. Somebody should ask about the study Hudson commisioned.

Umm - the diminishment of Grimes' influence on either campus is nothing to cry over, believe me. Word is that while he has the "provost" title attached to his name, but he might as well be picking up trash under the big oak trees at Gulf Park. That's the level of his administrative importance these days. His appointment to the Provost position (temporarily) at the Hattiesburg campus took him WAY out of his league, and it was a sad sight to behold.

Date: May 12, 2004

i've heard the rumor about Hudson and the package under Glamser's door. i've also heard he had his boy Robin (I call Hudson and this guy "batman and robin") put it under Glamser's door. this is a guy that could easily come and go from LAB and not be noticed. has an office there.

Date: May 12, 2004

The original packets about Dvorak were circulating before the enrollment scandal broke--unlikely it came from Hudson.

Date: May 12, 2004

not clear what ray means they were circulating. below is a quotation from the AAUP webpage on chronology.

On December 11, 2003, the president of AAUP USM received a packet of materials which had been slipped under his office door. The cover letter charged that Dr. Dvorak had misrepresented herself on a number of documents as having been a tenured associate professor of English at the University of Kentucky, Lexington from 1997 through 2000. Given the gravity of the charge, Dr. Glamser, the AAUP president, called Dr. George Carter who teaches a course in business ethics for advice. He suggested that Dr. Glamser advise fellow officers of the nature of the material. He also said that the materials should be given to Dr. Dvorak’s immediate supervisor, Dr. Thames. Dr. Glamser contacted AAUP USM Executive Committee members, and then hand carried the materials to Dr. Thames’ office on the morning of December 12, 2003.

Date: May 12, 2004

Packets earlier circulated about Cynthia Moore and alledged financial problems in her department that led to her being denied the ability to sign for expenses while still on the academic side. I think they were at the same time the first Dvorak notes came out, early in Fall semester. Never heard anymore about it.

Date: May 12, 2004

Some one I know sent Janet Braswell at the H-A the Moore packet, but nothing ever came of it.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: old admin
"Packets earlier circulated about Cynthia Moore and alledged financial problems in her department that led to her being denied the ability to sign for expenses while still on the academic side. I think they were at the same time the first Dvorak notes came out, early in Fall semester. Never heard anymore about it."

I saw the "packet" on the Associate Provost last fall. It was a poorly done hatchet job without any real substance. Someone used a series of old memos to build a case that the Assocaite Provost had illegally purchased jelly beans about 15 years ago. The internal auditor raised some questions (jelly bean being one) and later sent a memo stating she had done nothing wrong. Of course, this memo was not included in the packet. Brasswell likely saw it for what it was and opted not to use the material. In my opinion there was no substance to the packet and the Associate Provost did nothing wrong.

Date: May 12, 2004

I saw the packet of information on Dr. Moore. Not only were there questions raised about expenses and reimbursements, it was proven that she had forged the Dean's signature on several documents. She was removed as signature authority on all of her accounts after the forgery was proven.

So tell me - how an individual with a proven case of forgery (though never charged) can be appointed as Associate Provost? It seems that the more bad or evil you have accomplished, the better appointment you receive in academics. This is not how the "real world" operates.

I know for a postive fact that copies of the documents on Dr. Moore were mailed to: Hattiesburg American, Clarion Ledger, SunHerald, and numerous members of the IHL Board of Trustees. Still nothing was ever mentioned.

If the university were ran like a business, most of the top administrators would be behind bars!

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Brutus
" I saw the "packet" on the Associate Provost last fall. It was a poorly done hatchet job without any real substance. Someone used a series of old memos to build a case that the Assocaite Provost had illegally purchased jelly beans about 15 years ago. The internal auditor raised some questions (jelly bean being one) and later sent a memo stating she had done nothing wrong. "

Jelly beans? No jelly beans in the version my friend saw.

Date: May 12, 2004

I also heard Moore was guilty of plagiarism. Anybody know anything about this?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: concerned staff member
".. it was proven that she had forged the Dean's signature on several documents."

We are a bureaucracy of the first order. As an administrator, one occasionally has to sign other peoples names and then innitial it to insure education goes forward and our students are not left out to dry. Good taste (something in short supply with this administration) suggests you tell the boss when he or she get back into town. If you have an axe to grind with Cynthia that's fine, I would suggest one use something of substance. I feel we weaken our case when we parade 12 to 15 year old data of questionable merit. Furthermore, us keep the focus on Shelby.

I am not a troll but believe we should focus and move forward with high standards. We must hold ourselves to higher standard than Shelby which are pretty low. His argument was Frank and Gary used the campus e-mai for personal use. True, but a joke. Hanging Cynthia over 12 to 15 year old data and implying she embezeld a couple hundred dollars is on the same level as Shelby. Finally, their is a memo from the auditor which states she did nothing wrong.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"The packet under Glamser's door wasn't the only one. There was another packet about someone else in the dome circulating even earlier--I know because I got it in the mail. And I'm a complete nobody. Never did figure out how I got the honor."

This other packet was very interesting. It was about Cynthia Moore, I believe, and if not her someone very like her, signing off on financial expenditures for some department by forging someone's name or similar. It's foggy now. Sure looked nasty at the time. I'm nobody, too. Don't why I was blessed.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Brutus
" We are a bureaucracy of the first order. As an administrator, one occasionally has to sign other peoples names and then innitial it to insure education goes forward and our students are not left out to dry. Good taste (something in short supply with this administration) suggests you tell the boss when he or she get back into town. If you have an axe to grind with Cynthia that's fine, I would suggest one use something of substance. I feel we weaken our case when we parade 12 to 15 year old data of questionable merit. Furthermore, us keep the focus on Shelby. I am not a troll but believe we should focus and move forward with high standards. We must hold ourselves to higher standard than Shelby which are pretty low. His argument was Frank and Gary used the campus e-mai for personal use. True, but a joke. Hanging Cynthia over 12 to 15 year old data and implying she embezeld a couple hundred dollars is on the same level as Shelby. Finally, their is a memo from the auditor which states she did nothing wrong. "

Hey, you! Brutus! Methinks you does defend too much.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Brutus
" We are a bureaucracy of the first order. As an administrator, one occasionally has to sign other peoples names and then innitial it to insure education goes forward and our students are not left out to dry. Good taste (something in short supply with this administration) suggests you tell the boss when he or she get back into town. If you have an axe to grind with Cynthia that's fine, I would suggest one use something of substance. I feel we weaken our case when we parade 12 to 15 year old data of questionable merit. Furthermore, us keep the focus on Shelby. I am not a troll but believe we should focus and move forward with high standards. We must hold ourselves to higher standard than Shelby which are pretty low. His argument was Frank and Gary used the campus e-mai for personal use. True, but a joke. Hanging Cynthia over 12 to 15 year old data and implying she embezeld a couple hundred dollars is on the same level as Shelby. Finally, their is a memo from the auditor which states she did nothing wrong. "

My thought exactly, Brutus.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Brutus
"
If you have an axe to grind with Cynthia that's fine, I would suggest one use something of substance. I feel we weaken our case when we parade 12 to 15 year old data of questionable merit. Furthermore, us keep the focus on Shelby.
I am not a troll but believe we should focus and move forward with high standards. We must hold ourselves to higher standard than Shelby which are pretty low. His argument was Frank and Gary used the campus e-mai for personal use. True, but a joke. Hanging Cynthia over 12 to 15 year old data and implying she embezeld a couple hundred dollars is on the same level as Shelby. Finally, their is a memo from the auditor which states she did nothing wrong. "

You will be pleased to hear that the AAUP reviewed the materials on CM and decided not to pursue it for the reasons you cite.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Roasted
""

If I protest to much, I appologize. I read the material carefully, studied the contents and made some inquiries. My conclusions are what they are. She will go when the serpent's head is removed. You may not like her and that is fine but us do not come with false charges.

Regime change, yes. No quarter, yes. PUK, no. These are very clear to me. Divorak, Angela and Divorak, Mark must go. Shelby must go.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Brutus
" As an administrator, one occasionally has to sign other peoples names and then innitial it to insure education goes forward and our students are not left out to dry. "

That's an interesting concept, and probably the most unique take on forgery I have read lately. I think when you are looking at the quality of people in the dome, their professional history is quite relevant.

"Finally, their is a memo from the auditor which states she did nothing wrong. "

And I wonder who wrote that memo. I was a part of the department when this happened, and the only memo I ever saw was one relieving her of signature authority. Why did that happen if she did nothing wrong?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Brutus
"As an administrator, one occasionally has to sign other peoples names and then innitial it to insure education goes forward and our students are not left out to dry. "

My experience is that this is done in rare cases and with explicit permission. It's also often the case that administrators empower others to sign for them in their absence (staff and such).

The Cynthia Moore case, as I recall it, was CM repeatedly signing a dean's name w/o permission for personal projects of which CM was the beneficiary, ie, forgery.

The fact that it was covered up, hushed up, whatever you want to call it, in no way makes it ok.

I do agree that the material I saw was insufficient for action, but it certainly suggested that there ought to be much more investigation. It was, I think, a significantly larger provocation than Dvorak's lying on her vita.