Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Shelby Thames' vision for USM
Post Info TOPIC: Shelby Thames' vision for USM
Robert Campbell

Date:
Shelby Thames' vision for USM
Permalink Closed


 


I'm partly responsible for taking "Angie and the Bar" off-thread, by answering a post from Curious about Shelby Thames' overall vision for USM (as opposed to Angie Dvorak's qualifications to be Vice-President for Research).


I think there are some issues of wider interest raised by my reply, so I'm posting it on a new thread.


******************


Curious took strong exception to my way of characterizing Thames vision, of USM as Thames Tech or Polymer State.


quote:

Originally posted by: Curious
This statement above all others you have made shows how far removed you are from understanding what has been going on at USM, including before Dr. Thames was made President. My niece is majoring in Marine Science. More than half of the funded research at USM comes from the Department of Marine Science. Dr. Thames vision as I understand it is to leverage the strengths of the USM which have grown to be Marine Science, Psychology, Polymer Science, and includes Nursing (he is actively pursuing a teaching hospital for nursing and psychology on the Mississippi Gulf Coast). At the time Dr. Thames took over the reigns of USM the board of trustees were requiring better efficiency and accountability from all institutions in the state. At the time there was a $3.4 million loss of state funding for fiscal 2003, the third consecutive year of less state money. For two years prior to Dr. Thames taking office there had been no pay raises for faculty and staff. Faculty members had started to leave for better paying positions at other universities out side the state. Mississippi State University has particularly been hit hard by the lack of pay raises. And the state funding situation this year has been no better. Dr. Thames’ predecessor, Dr. Fleming ran afoul of the faculty in large measure over this financial crisis and it played a significant part in his leaving USM. That Dr. Thames should at this point be focusing on alternative funding sources would seem to me a wise and prudent thing to do. All of these big-ticket funding grants you seem to disparage are at this time a critical element in USM improving its financial situation. Everyone please note that the indirects collected on the grants (anywhere from 25% to 45% of the total funds) go into the university to support overhead and facilities which leaves more of the state appropriated funds to support faculty and staff and help keep tuitions from increasing any greater that it has in the past several years. Just look at local schools. When budgets get tight it’s the arts that are often the first to go. The same holds true for USM. If we all want to maintain the liberal arts and music at USM then we need to start supporting alternative funding streams like R&D grants. The major universities are doing this. Just compare USM’s R&D budget ratio to students with that of any major university. No, Robert Campbell, I will defend Dr. Thames goals but not the tactics he has employed. I will say I can not see how at this time Dr. Thames can stay on and USM move forward, nor can I say how USM will move forward if the faculty does not itself begin to realize that USM must grow and change and this includes the faculty improving its efficiency and realizing that those parts of the USM which can generate more outside funding/R&D grants will and should become a more central focus. This will not be at the expense of the liberal arts but will assure their preservation. I believe to have the best marine science department or best polymer science program that you have to have the best English department. These are not mutually exclusive but paired at the hips. And you may find this hard to believe Robert Campbell, but Dr. Thames believes the same thing. He has just done a sorry job of communicating this to the faculty. Perhaps the PUC meeting was not such a total waste today if you can see it in this light. With regard to the idea that this is all some part of some war between different parts of the state, that the dumbest statement I have read in quite some time. “Some times a cigar is just a cigar”, to quote Freud. "



 *******


Here's how I responded:



Curious,



If you want to see, in somewhat greater depth, what I think of Shelby Thames' "vision" for USM, I have written about it on Liberty and Power:



http://hnn.us/blogs/entries /5101.html



In the meantime, it is not a good idea to assume that a faculty member who criticizes administrators like Thames for putting all of their marbles on grant-funded research is therefore economically ignorant.  Quite the contrary: those administrators who treat grants with indirect cost components as the only revenue stream worth increasing are the ones who are economically ignorant.  They neither take adequate notice of the costs of staying competitive for grants and contracts,  nor do they pay enough attention to other sources of revenue.



I'd heard that Horace Fleming got tossed in 2002 because he couldn't respond adequately to budget cuts.   I've seen two Presidents of Clemson go for the same reason, during my time here.  (And Fleming himself was a finalist for President of Clemson in 1995.  My senior colleagues considered him the weakest of the four who were invited for interviews, and on that particular issue our Trustees agreed with them.)



But what should administrators do, at a state university, when the state legislature cuts direct appropriations?



One, they should raise tuition.  (Keeping tuition low, in order to flatter legislators into increasing appropriations, is a lost cause, and has been so in most states since the late 1980s.  Clemson's Trustees finally caught on to this fact in 1999.)  Tuition is a source of revenue.  And the closer tuition approaches the actual cost of instruction, the more attention students and their parents will pay to the value of what they are getting, and the more obvious it will be that undergraduate instruction is actually helping to prop up other parts of the university.  Even now, I am willing to bet that the lowest-cost, highest-enrollment progams at USM are massively cross-subsidizing the high-cost, low-enrollment programs.  Where are the low-cost per credit hour, high enrollment programs at USM?  Where are the high-cost per credit hour, low-enrollment programs?   Hint: the programs that bring in the most grant bucks are normally high-cost, low-enrollment.



Two, they need to step up their campaigns for private donations, so they can build an endowment.   One thing that I was simply not prepared for, when I began learning about Thames' track record, is his total disregard for building up private giving to USM.  Most governing boards would fire a president simply for leaving a Capital Campaign dead in the water, as Thames has.



Three, they need to cut administration.  Administrators are expensive, most of them like to build administrative empires, many regard themselves as part of a class superior to faculty and staff, and past a certain point the added administrators gum up every decision making process within the institution.  Thames has increased administrative expenditure at USM instead of slashing it, as would have been best for the institution.  His assertions about returning $2 million to the classroom are outright lies.



Fourth, they need to cut academic programs that are no longer drawing enrollment, or that are training people for jobs most of them will never be able to get.  For example: Any university whose Ph.D. programs in the Humanities are not top-rated should be scaling them back, because they are (relatively) expensive to run, and most of their degree holders will never be able to get tenure-track jobs in academia.  But it isn't just Ph. D. programs in say, Foreign Languages, that need close scrutiny these days.  At Clemson (historically a land-grant institution) failure to make a proper appraisal of the Agriculture programs, and to begin to roll some of them up in an orderly fashion, has led to their sudden collapse as the legislature deals with a budget crunch by slashing their special-purpose funding.  There has been much unnecessary suffering as a consequence.



So, sure, there are tough challenges that Thames' successor will need to face.   But it isn't simply that Thames is a failure as a communicator.  Thames hasn't a clue how to get USM to grow and prosper.   In fact, the liberal arts undergraduate programs that he despises are probably cross-subsidizing his beloved Polymer Science, and are assuredly helping to prop up his bloated administrative structure.



Your niece may be doing OK because she is in a privileged program.  Most USM undergraduates are being shorted by the Thames regime, and the kind of university he appears to want would dispense with undergrads altogether, as soon as that could be arranged.



Meanwhile, sources on this board do not depict Thames as a benefactor of the Nursing program.  On the contrary, it appears to be nearing collapse under his stewardship.



May I suggest less deference to "Dr. Thames"--and sharper analysis of the economics of a state university?



One more thing:  I am not attributing to Thames himself a conscious project of tearing USM down, in order to benefit rival universities in the state system.  I am sure that Thames thinks he is working to build USM (of course, he is so egomaniacal that he can't distinguish the welfare of USM from his own aggrandizement).  Probably his most vociferious political backers, like Klumb and Nicholson, believe that he is building USM as well, although they have other agendas too, like putting USM resources to work for businesses that don't have to pay in full for what they're getting, and sticking it to professors as a class.  But the remaining support for Thames on  the IHL Board is coming from folks who don't give a damn whether USM does well, and may actively want it to falter.   Thames is too busy admiring his own reflection to realize it, but I really do think that for some politically influential individuals in Mississippi, he is the Designated Demolisher of USM.



Robert Campbell



__________________
educator

Date:
Permalink Closed

Robert,


You and I are on the same wave length.  You've hit the nail on the head when you discuss what motivates Thames. You're right. Thames is not purposely destroying USM, and he doesn't realize the extent to which the IHL is using him. Having returned from those trenches and undoubtedlly having to face them again in the near future, my accounts are ones on the frontline of the battlefield. If others don't realize the points that you make, it's probably because they don't want to take off the blinders and discover that the tyrant actually resembles an oaf.



__________________
foot soldier

Date:
Permalink Closed

Curious,

Are you really an alum with a niece in school at USM? Your comments suggest a closer connection. Please don't take offense, I'm just asking.

__________________
Storehouse

Date:
Permalink Closed

Brilliant assessment and analysis. Everyone should read this.

__________________
ram

Date:
Permalink Closed

Wow--


Curious, your's is the best restatement of the Thames ideal that I have read. My sincere thanks for helping me understand what most SFT advocates purport to support. (Your niece is fortunate to have such an involved and informed relative.)


A cynic might say that the chilling satirist, Shelby's Right, better expressed the true troll vision in an earlier thread.


Robert, your version of "the Vision" should be required reading for everyone with an interest in this controversy. My fears exactly.


Thanks.



__________________
Storehouse

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Storehouse
"Brilliant assessment and analysis. Everyone should read this."
By this I meant the Campbell message, of course.

__________________
foot soldier

Date:
Permalink Closed

Curious said:

Everyone please note that the
indirects collected on the grants (anywhere from 25% to 45% of the total funds) go into the
university to support overhead and facilities which leaves more of the state appropriated funds to
support faculty and staff and help keep tuitions from increasing any greater that it has in the past
several years. Just look at local schools. When budgets get tight it’s the arts that are often the
first to go. The same holds true for USM. If we all want to maintain the liberal arts and music at
USM then we need to start supporting alternative funding streams like R&D grants.

My response:

I think the problem is that down here in the trenches, we are not seeing any evidence whatsoever that the big grants we get in the sciences are having any impact whatsoever on funding for the arts and humanities. In fact, all evidence suggests that the Thames administration has little or no understanding what these disciplines contribute to a university. A couple of examples:

1) You really mean to tell me that this University could not come up with $140,000 to fund the forum series if it wanted to? In the scheme of things that's not much (a drop in the bucket of athletics).

2) The "innovation" awards started last year are in the categories of basic, applied, and creative research (also I think cooperative? I forget). There is no category which covers a scholar in humanities--these terms don't even apply to them. The scientists win basic and applied, and the arts folks win creative. What is a literary scholar or a historian to do? This is a little thing, I realize, but I think it is symptomatic of the administration's lack of understanding.

3) The FAR (Faculty Activity report) is full of little boxes about bringing in outside money (in contrary to form I used to fill out, which emphasized the actual intellectual activities I'm engaged in). For a scholar in the humanitites (at least in my field), bringing in large amounts of outside money that will impact the rest of the university is almost impossible. It's like saying to us, how many times did you levitate last year?

4) There is a great deal of pressure for us to teach more and larger classes, and no recognition that scholars at major research universities don't teach as many classes. I don't mean to sound like one of those stereotypical professors whining because they have to teach (I like to teach), but reality is, if you want someone to be a big league researcher you have to give them time to do it. Scientists can buy out their time with outside grants. Most English professors can't. The MIDAS program Angie Dvorak started, where you get a kickback when your grants buy out your teaching time, is a complete joke when it comes to the humanities. For me, it's a snowball's chance in hell.

5) I have not seen any radical increase in funding for arts and humanities research under Thames. I think there are a few more summer research grants than there used to be. But none of these are designated by discipline and a humanities scholar has to compete across the campus to get them. (Look at these year's Lucas grants--I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in the humanities got one.) At major research universities there are certain lines of funding that are college or discipline specific.

6) It is particularly irritating to be asked to bring in outside money when USM is too poor to provide me with the basics I have had at other universities. I buy my own chalk, I print handouts with my own paper since the university cannot afford to provide me with enough photocopies, I bought my own printer. Many of my colleagues are not even provided with computers. I cannot make a long distance phone call unless I go beg to someone. Heck, the stairs of my building are being held together with duct tape!

So--it's not the we object to the emphasis on bringing in outside money, its that it is almost impossible for many of us of us to do so. The university says, "you're starving? Well just go out and get some food."

Sorry for the rant, but perhaps you can see why I'm leaving.

__________________
USM_staffer

Date:
Marine Science is getting shafted too.
Permalink Closed

Curious wrote:

"My niece is majoring in Marine Science. More than half of the funded research at USM comes from the Department of Marine Science. Dr. Thames vision as I understand it is to leverage the strengths of the USM which have grown to be Marine Science, Psychology, Polymer Science, and includes Nursing (he is actively pursuing a teaching hospital for nursing and psychology on the Mississippi Gulf Coast)."

If you look at Bab's list, you will notice that one of the exiting professors is the chair of the Marine Science Department. I have it on good authority that the reason for his departure is that Thames has a personal vendetta against him and made decisions to harm the department. I do know that $2 million in state appropriations was rerouted to another unit AWAY from Marine Science just recently. Dr. Wiesenburg is leaving so that Marine Science won't be targeted for retaliation because of him.

The point of this rant is that Thames is more concerned with his own personal agenda than with the betterment of the University. And that is the biggest problem with his administration.

__________________
present professor

Date:
RE: RE: Shelby Thames' vision for USM
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"Curious said: Everyone please note that the indirects collected on the grants (anywhere from 25% to 45% of the total funds) go into the university to support overhead and facilities which leaves more of the state appropriated funds to support faculty and staff and help keep tuitions from increasing any greater that it has in the past several years. Just look at local schools. When budgets get tight it’s the arts that are often the first to go. The same holds true for USM. If we all want to maintain the liberal arts and music at USM then we need to start supporting alternative funding streams like R&D grants. My response: I think the problem is that down here in the trenches, we are not seeing any evidence whatsoever that the big grants we get in the sciences are having any impact whatsoever on funding for the arts and humanities. In fact, all evidence suggests that the Thames administration has little or no understanding what these disciplines contribute to a university. A couple of examples: 1) You really mean to tell me that this University could not come up with $140,000 to fund the forum series if it wanted to? In the scheme of things that's not much (a drop in the bucket of athletics). 2) The "innovation" awards started last year are in the categories of basic, applied, and creative research (also I think cooperative? I forget). There is no category which covers a scholar in humanities--these terms don't even apply to them. The scientists win basic and applied, and the arts folks win creative. What is a literary scholar or a historian to do? This is a little thing, I realize, but I think it is symptomatic of the administration's lack of understanding. 3) The FAR (Faculty Activity report) is full of little boxes about bringing in outside money (in contrary to form I used to fill out, which emphasized the actual intellectual activities I'm engaged in). For a scholar in the humanitites (at least in my field), bringing in large amounts of outside money that will impact the rest of the university is almost impossible. It's like saying to us, how many times did you levitate last year? 4) There is a great deal of pressure for us to teach more and larger classes, and no recognition that scholars at major research universities don't teach as many classes. I don't mean to sound like one of those stereotypical professors whining because they have to teach (I like to teach), but reality is, if you want someone to be a big league researcher you have to give them time to do it. Scientists can buy out their time with outside grants. Most English professors can't. The MIDAS program Angie Dvorak started, where you get a kickback when your grants buy out your teaching time, is a complete joke when it comes to the humanities. For me, it's a snowball's chance in hell. 5) I have not seen any radical increase in funding for arts and humanities research under Thames. I think there are a few more summer research grants than there used to be. But none of these are designated by discipline and a humanities scholar has to compete across the campus to get them. (Look at these year's Lucas grants--I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in the humanities got one.) At major research universities there are certain lines of funding that are college or discipline specific. 6) It is particularly irritating to be asked to bring in outside money when USM is too poor to provide me with the basics I have had at other universities. I buy my own chalk, I print handouts with my own paper since the university cannot afford to provide me with enough photocopies, I bought my own printer. Many of my colleagues are not even provided with computers. I cannot make a long distance phone call unless I go beg to someone. Heck, the stairs of my building are being held together with duct tape! So--it's not the we object to the emphasis on bringing in outside money, its that it is almost impossible for many of us of us to do so. The university says, "you're starving? Well just go out and get some food." Sorry for the rant, but perhaps you can see why I'm leaving."

A good rant footsoldier. I feel your pain. I share it too.


Sorry you are going.



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"Curious said: Everyone please note that the indirects collected on the grants (anywhere from 25% to 45% of the total funds) go into the university to support overhead and facilities which leaves more of the state appropriated funds to support faculty and staff and help keep tuitions from increasing any greater that it has in the past several years. Just look at local schools. When budgets get tight it’s the arts that are often the first to go. The same holds true for USM. If we all want to maintain the liberal arts and music at USM then we need to start supporting alternative funding streams like R&D grants. My response: I think the problem is that down here in the trenches, we are not seeing any evidence whatsoever that the big grants we get in the sciences are having any impact whatsoever on funding for the arts and humanities. In fact, all evidence suggests that the Thames administration has little or no understanding what these disciplines contribute to a university. A couple of examples: 1) You really mean to tell me that this University could not come up with $140,000 to fund the forum series if it wanted to? In the scheme of things that's not much (a drop in the bucket of athletics). 2) The "innovation" awards started last year are in the categories of basic, applied, and creative research (also I think cooperative? I forget). There is no category which covers a scholar in humanities--these terms don't even apply to them. The scientists win basic and applied, and the arts folks win creative. What is a literary scholar or a historian to do? This is a little thing, I realize, but I think it is symptomatic of the administration's lack of understanding. 3) The FAR (Faculty Activity report) is full of little boxes about bringing in outside money (in contrary to form I used to fill out, which emphasized the actual intellectual activities I'm engaged in). For a scholar in the humanitites (at least in my field), bringing in large amounts of outside money that will impact the rest of the university is almost impossible. It's like saying to us, how many times did you levitate last year? 4) There is a great deal of pressure for us to teach more and larger classes, and no recognition that scholars at major research universities don't teach as many classes. I don't mean to sound like one of those stereotypical professors whining because they have to teach (I like to teach), but reality is, if you want someone to be a big league researcher you have to give them time to do it. Scientists can buy out their time with outside grants. Most English professors can't. The MIDAS program Angie Dvorak started, where you get a kickback when your grants buy out your teaching time, is a complete joke when it comes to the humanities. For me, it's a snowball's chance in hell. 5) I have not seen any radical increase in funding for arts and humanities research under Thames. I think there are a few more summer research grants than there used to be. But none of these are designated by discipline and a humanities scholar has to compete across the campus to get them. (Look at these year's Lucas grants--I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in the humanities got one.) At major research universities there are certain lines of funding that are college or discipline specific. 6) It is particularly irritating to be asked to bring in outside money when USM is too poor to provide me with the basics I have had at other universities. I buy my own chalk, I print handouts with my own paper since the university cannot afford to provide me with enough photocopies, I bought my own printer. Many of my colleagues are not even provided with computers. I cannot make a long distance phone call unless I go beg to someone. Heck, the stairs of my building are being held together with duct tape! So--it's not the we object to the emphasis on bringing in outside money, its that it is almost impossible for many of us of us to do so. The university says, "you're starving? Well just go out and get some food." Sorry for the rant, but perhaps you can see why I'm leaving."

Great post, foot soldier, outlining the basic problems for humanities professors vis a vis research $$.  You are exactly right on all accounts.  It is EXTREMELY unfair for humanities and science professors to be evaluated on some common form when it comes to research because, as anyone knows who has worked in the grant world, it is like comparing apples & oranges.  The fact of the matter is that the largest federal agencies (with the largest pots of money) are the ones relating to the sciences (National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Dept. of Defense, the new Dept. of Homeland Security, etc.).  Shelby wasn't trying to lobby the National Endowment for the Humanities on March 8 (day of famous press conference)...no, he was about to make a trip to lobby the new Dept. of Homeland Security.  Why?  Because that's where tons of federal dollars are now being directed.


This business of "making millionaires out of faculty members" is just ludicrous.  If this were so, then why haven't all the Polymer Science professors at USM already left with their "millions?"  Why hasn't Shelby Thames left academia to pursue his stellar business career?  Because this is more hooey/spin/fool talk from SFT, and here's why.  As Curious pointed out, indirects are the real prize from grant money.  This is money that is (mostly) free and clear, for the university to use as it sees fit.  Oh, yes, it is SUPPOSED to pay for overhead costs (facilities and administration or F&A, as they say in the biz), but in reality, it goes first to the Prez, who then designates some of it to go to the VP of Research, some to the Dean, and some to the Dept. chair of the PI (Principle Investigator).  But (to my recollection), it is the President who decides where it all goes.  All of this $$ creates a discretionary fund, as you can imagine, of great proportions.  Don Cotten (former VP of Research, for those out of state) used to use part of his to give seed money to newer faculty members (start-up money for their projects, etc.), and I don't know if Angie continued that practice or not.  That's a responsible and fruitful use for this money...the old adage in the grant world is "money attracts money" (i.e. you will get funded if you can show you have been funded before and did good research with the money--so start-up money from your univ. is one place to begin). 


Okay, sorry for the Grant Writing 101 lesson (and apologies to those who already know this), but here's the kicker:  Shelby doesn't want to leave the university because where else could he have complete control over 25-50% of $67 million dollars (or whatever the current figure is for total USM research dollars last year)?  NOWHERE!  No other "business" would give Shelby Thames that kind of control over that much money.  So, think about this in terms of Shelby-land...what disciplines pull in the big grants?  CoST disciplines!  Which don't?  Humanities and Arts!  Voila...we have the Shelboo plan in a nutshell. 


I have to say, I always found it very telling that the only 2 "reorganized" colleges that didn't undergo a name change were Shelby and Dana's colleges.  Words speak volumes, people.



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
RE: Marine Science is getting shafted too.
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: USM_staffer
"Curious wrote: "My niece is majoring in Marine Science. More than half of the funded research at USM comes from the Department of Marine Science. Dr. Thames vision as I understand it is to leverage the strengths of the USM which have grown to be Marine Science, Psychology, Polymer Science, and includes Nursing (he is actively pursuing a teaching hospital for nursing and psychology on the Mississippi Gulf Coast)." If you look at Bab's list, you will notice that one of the exiting professors is the chair of the Marine Science Department. I have it on good authority that the reason for his departure is that Thames has a personal vendetta against him and made decisions to harm the department. I do know that $2 million in state appropriations was rerouted to another unit AWAY from Marine Science just recently. Dr. Wiesenburg is leaving so that Marine Science won't be targeted for retaliation because of him. The point of this rant is that Thames is more concerned with his own personal agenda than with the betterment of the University. And that is the biggest problem with his administration."
You are dead-on, USM Staffer.  The main rumor I heard when SFT got into the presidential race in the first place (and I mentioned it on another thread here waaay back in the beginning) was that SFT got mad at Don Cotten (the strongest contender for Prez after Horace was "dismissed") because Don privileged Marine Sciences over Polymer Science for some congressional pork money.  SFT, president of the "Everything's All about ME" club, jumped into the prez race right after that happened.  Only a rumor, but came from a good source and seems consistent with SFT's personality flaws.

__________________
Invictus

Date:
RE: Shelby Thames' vision for USM
Permalink Closed

Just a question (or comment, depending on how you read this)...

Curious mentioned indirects on grants. Isn't this quite variable, depending on the funding source? IIRC, grants in the humanities generally allow less indirect costs than those in science & technology. I've seen more than a few grants that allowed no indirect costs at all.


__________________
Jameela Lares

Date:
Permalink Closed

Curious had written, inter alia, I believe to have the best marine science department or best polymer science program that you have to have the best English department. These are not mutually exclusive but paired at the hips. And you may find this hard to believe Robert Campbell, but Dr. Thames believes the same thing.


I'm never sure how scientists are defining "the best English department."  Best for what?  For teaching technical writing, or for doing advanced literary research?  One vision serves the hard sciences as an underpaid subaltern, the other challenges them in terms of what it means to be truly human.


I have not yet seen much evidence that Dr. Thames understands the latter.  In fact, all the evidence seems to suggest that for him "best" equals "best for my own purposes," which don't seem to value literature whatever, but only the knack for putting nouns and verbs in proper places.  Technical writing can be taught fairly easily, even by graduate assistants.  It's a basic, sea-level skill.  Understanding literarture that transcends lab reports, however, requires decades of reading and thinking.  Most English departments define "best" not in terms of sea-level skills, but of scaling the Matterhorn or Everest.


I will charitably hope I'm wrong on what appears to be Dr. Thames's definition of "the best English department," but the burden of proof is not ours.



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"Just a question (or comment, depending on how you read this)... Curious mentioned indirects on grants. Isn't this quite variable, depending on the funding source? IIRC, grants in the humanities generally allow less indirect costs than those in science & technology. I've seen more than a few grants that allowed no indirect costs at all. "

Yes, indirects are variables.  There are guidelines for each university (you can go to the USM ORSP site to see what USM's general indirect rate is) and it is based on some formula (can't remember exactly what is factored in, but there's a formula).  So, there's a standard amount that each university would like to charge on indirects, but the agency has the final say.  Some agencies allow only 10% or less (in my feeble memory, I remember Dept. of Ed. paid low indirects).  You have to play by their rules to work with them.  There's also the issue of matching money (money that the university has to pay to "match" the money coming from the agency).  Many times, deals are made with matching money/indirects within the university.  Not all grants require matching money, though.


It's all funny money, in the end, but I'll bet Shelboo figured that out early on, which is why he likes working at a university rather than private industry.


Also, if Shelboo is so hot on Humanties professors getting more grant money, why doesn't he hire a grant writer for COAL? (and all the other colleges, too!).  Polymer Science has one (I used to be it!).  Believe me, I paid for my salary within a year, and then some (quite a bit of "some!").  Sure, it would be harder to get the humanities grants, but if you have someone whose job is to focus on finding the grants, helping to write them, doing all the crazy paperwork involved with getting them... trust me, you're going to get more grants.



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" Yes, indirects are variables.  There are guidelines for each university (you can go to the USM ORSP site to see what USM's general indirect rate is) "

For you grantwriting aficianados, here's the link to USM's F&A rates:


http://www.usm.edu/orsp/forms-budget/facilities-admin-rates.html


Looks like their most recent negotiated rate is 43.8% (on research and instruction on-campus). 



__________________
Alum2

Date:
Permalink Closed

Robert,


You have put a good face on what is happening here at USM now and how it relates to other Universities.  One thing that many alums and especially townspeople of the Burg don't have is a perspective of what its like in other states.  The state of higher education in all states are tight budgets, cost cutting, less travel, no raises etc.


Thames problem is that he can't see over the stumps to realize that he cut down some  big trees.  He has always been self serving and will never hear the other side of any debate.  Thames is too busy telling one "how it is in Polymer Science" to listen to the other side or facts in other areas. 


Private funding should be a goal of any great President.  It is tough work but there are professionals who know how to do it.  It's too bad that Thames choose a novice who had no experience in the area whatsoever.  Thames has always surrounded himself with only those who would agree with him, not expand his knowledge.  He cannot accept even the slightest suggestion from others.  This is not a quality of many good presidents either.


 


 



__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
"Technical writing can be taught fairly easily, even by graduate assistants.  It's a basic, sea-level skill."


If you mean "technical writing" in the sense that there are "technical writers" who generate documentation for scientific & technical projects, yes, it's appears to be pretty basic. But go browse the "technical" shelves in any bookstore & you'll see that the best "technical writers" aren't bad writers.

But scientific literature isn't just "technical writing." Some of it is literature. Stephen Jay Gould, regardless of how one feels about his politics, could by-god write. So could Charles Darwin, Ernst Mayr, J.D. Watson & a host of others.

I suspect all of those imminent scientists had more than a passing familiarity with literature & not just tech writing.

Quote from my favorite "technical writer" (Charles Darwin): "...one good feast on the carcass of a putrid whale lasts a long time."

__________________
Jameela Lares

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" If you mean "technical writing" in the sense that there are "technical writers" who generate documentation for scientific & technical projects, yes, it's appears to be pretty basic. But go browse the "technical" shelves in any bookstore & you'll see that the best "technical writers" aren't bad writers. But scientific literature isn't just "technical writing." Some of it is literature. Stephen Jay Gould, regardless of how one feels about his politics, could by-god write. So could Charles Darwin, Ernst Mayr, J.D. Watson & a host of others. I suspect all of those imminent scientists had more than a passing familiarity with literature & not just tech writing. Quote from my favorite "technical writer" (Charles Darwin): "...one good feast on the carcass of a putrid whale lasts a long time." "

Ah, Invictus, we agree.   There is a world of difference between "technical writing"--my term--and "scientific literature"--which is yours.


And we haven't even mentioned some of the marvelous texts generated by the social scientists.


I would just like to think that a profound sense of the interrelatedness of thought and expression is animating the current administration of this university.  I haven't yet seen evidence that it is.



__________________
Curious

Date:
Permalink Closed

Foot Solider; first let me say I am sorry to here that you are leaving. You strike me as a very reasonable person and what USM needs most at this time are reasonable minds open to working out the problems and issues affecting USM as opposed to taking extreme lynch mob like positions that Dr. Thames and everyone associated with him must go! I believe USM would be much better served with everyone focusing on the real issues and challenges facing it (like those you expressed above affecting your department, i.e. supplies, etc) than focusing on personalities. This is not to say that personalities are not also at issue. When discussing personalities the important point is to focus on the behavior that results from it. One may have an employee who comes in very happy and have a “great personality” yet their productivity is very poor. Another employee may come in sullen and disgruntle yet do excellent work. These extremes are only to illustrate that personality and behavior are to some extent different issue and the more important one for an organization to focus on is the behavior and its impact on the mission and goals of the organization. That said, there is much about Dr. Thames’ behavior that needs changing and this may not be possible thus Dr. Thames may need to leave.


 


With regard to Dr. Dvorak I have really not seen anything in her behavior that causes me great concern. Let me quickly state for Robert Campbell that if Dr. Dvorak has blatantly lied on her resume/CV then she should be dismissed. To the best of my knowledge this had not been shown. As to her qualifications for her job I can only point to the fact that R&D funding has grown at a very respectable pace under her management. Thus while Robert Campbell does not believe that Dr. Dvorak is qualified for her position, I would argue that the supposed qualification obviously do correlate with the output metrics, growth in R&D, and thus it is perhaps the required qualifications which should be changed and not the individual in the job. As to comparing Dr. Dvorak to her counter part at MSU I would note that MSU is a much more engineering intensive institution where as USM is looking to associate it self more in the economic development roll which I believe is an excellent move. Dr. Dvorak’s credentials and track record I believe show her well qualified in this regard.


 


Foot Soldier, concerning your question: “Are you really an alum with a niece in school at USM? Your comments suggest a closer connection. Please don't take offense, I'm just asking.”


 


I have my undergraduate in EE from Mississippi State University and an MBA from USM. I work at the NASA Stennis Space Center and in my job I often work on projects with university faculty members from USM, MSU, JSU, Ole Miss and numerous out of state universities. This may help explain my familiarity with contract and grants programs, university indirect rates, faculty members and other subject matter that have been discussed. I have been doing this for over ten years hence also my historical knowledge of various individuals in the past. I am rather busy today and may not be in a position to post any other messages today. I would like to thank Robert Campbell for starting this thread and hope it continues to be one of the interesting ones concerning the real issues at hand and thoughts on what might be the best course of action.


 

One last point, what to me has been Dr. Thames greatest failing, was in his not focusing early on in working with the liberal arts and other basically non S&T related departments in obtaining their support of his vision by explaining that this is perhaps the best way to support and grow their areas in the long run. His behavior I believe left many feeling pushed aside and disregarded as opposed to be part of the team. That there may be individuals he believes to be deadwood, and that should be moved out would have most likely been better accomplished with having the support of the majority than from his current position of working in the minority. I look forward to reading everyone’s comments.

__________________
Curious

Date:
Permalink Closed

Foot Soldier, I did want to make one other final observation. If not for Dr. Dvorak and her predecessor, Dr. Cotten (whom I had hoped at the time would have been selected as President of USM as opposed to Thames) having grown R&D funding from its historical level of around $20 to $30 million a year to now well over $70 million a year, think what the impact would have been on USM during this past four years of state cutbacks and tight budgets. While you may have seen little positive impact in your department I do believe you would have seen a greater decline. The impact to date has just been to keep USM above water as opposed to the sinking ship I believe it would have become with out the increase in R&D funding.

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
"I would just like to think that a profound sense of the interrelatedness of thought and expression is animating the current administration of this university.  I haven't yet seen evidence that it is."


Bingo!

The difference between "technical writing" & "scientific literature" parallels the difference between "technologists" & "scientists." I know from my many years as an inmate in CoST that there are plenty of "scientist" types there who consider SFT to be a "technologist."

By choosing "technology" (production of marketable patents, etc) over "science" (production of knowledge/basic research), the administration is choosing short-term profit over long-term productivity.

Are the Harvards, Cal Techs & Carnegie-Mellons of this world where they are today because they focus entirely on "technology" or because they have solid reputations for producing cutting edge basic research? Or are they able to produce profitable "technology" because they have a lot of solid basic research going on?

To bow to the "time are tough" argument & say we must go for short-term profit, is plain cowardly. It is an admission that USM can't innovate except on the periphery of things.

Shelby Thames only thinks is is making "tough" decisions. Actually, he's just taking the easy, coward's route. His vision is unimaginative & not innovative at all.

It's a rear guard action. Which is why his opponents need to guard their rears. And it's also why his proponents need to cover their a$$es.

__________________
foot soldier

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"Foot Soldier, I did want to make one other final observation. If not for Dr. Dvorak and her predecessor, Dr. Cotten (whom I had hoped at the time would have been selected as President of USM as opposed to Thames) having grown R&D funding from its historical level of around $20 to $30 million a year to now well over $70 million a year, think what the impact would have been on USM during this past four years of state cutbacks and tight budgets. While you may have seen little positive impact in your department I do believe you would have seen a greater decline. The impact to date has just been to keep USM above water as opposed to the sinking ship I believe it would have become with out the increase in R&D funding."


Again, all I can say is, at my end of the Titanic, we can see the hole and the water gushing in and no one is providing us life preservers. I'm a department of ca. 40 faculty, and its operating budget is less than my annual salary (which is not particularly high). Recent accreditation team said they don't know how we can sustain what we do on this amount of money. Apparently Thames's response was to get angry and say "There is no more money."

__________________
Jameela Lares

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"Are the Harvards, Cal Techs & Carnegie-Mellons of this world where they are today because they focus entirely on "technology" or because they have solid reputations for producing cutting edge basic research? Or are they able to produce profitable "technology" because they have a lot of solid basic research going on?
I meant to add to my original post that Cal Tech's library tower has a fine humanities collection--three solid floors of it, and boy, did I use it for my dissertation.  I had and still have borrowing privileges because I was and still am a regular reader at the Huntington Library, which not only has rare books (e.g., the priceless Ellesmere Chaucer manuscript), art (e.g., "Blue Boy"), and world-famous gardens (they employ a "director of camelias"!) but also lots of contact with places like Cal Tech.  Many Huntington Readers are members of the Cal Tech faculty club.  I just checked the website at www.huntington.org and noticed it has the motto, "Nourishing the spirit, enriching the mind."  That's what the arts, humanities, and sciences can do if they work together.

__________________
foot soldier

Date:
Permalink Closed

Director of camelias! The perfect job for Roy Klumb.

__________________
Curious

Date:
Permalink Closed

Invictus, with regard to your statement, “By choosing "technology" (production of marketable patents, etc) over "science" (production of knowledge/basic research), the administration is choosing short-term profit over long-term productivity.

Are the Harvards, Cal Techs & Carnegie-Mellons of this world where they are today because they focus entirely on "technology" or because they have solid reputations for producing cutting edge basic research? Or are they able to produce profitable "technology" because they have a lot of solid basic research going on?”


 


I would point out that Dr. Thames and Dr. Dvorak as VP for Research, to the best of my knowledge have not chosen to focus “entirely” on technology over basic research. The emphasis in recent years at USM concerning patents has been based on part of the criteria for earning the status of a Carnegie Doctoral/Research-Extensive institution, number of patents being one of the measures. This desire to increase the number of patents started under Dr. Cotten who had as one of his own goals, to help USM earn the Carnegie Doctoral/Research-Extensive status. This was also a goal of Dr. Fleming, President of USM at this time. The Carnegie Doctoral/Research-Extensive designation is seen as an important factor when attempting to recruit world- class researchers and faculty. As you point out, there is a strong relationship between basic research and the ability to produce profitable technology. This relationship is one I think there is no doubt Dr. Thames with his polymer science background understands.


 


Next, Jameela Lares comment, “I just checked the website at www.huntington.org and noticed it has the motto, "Nourishing the spirit, enriching the mind."  That's what the arts, humanities, and sciences can do if they work together” echoes one of my earlier statements. This is also a sentiment I believe Dr. Dvorak would agree completely with as her Ph.D. from Florida State University is in English. I think for anyone to claim she is an enemy of the liberal arts (not to imply you have Jameela Lares) is really barking up the wrong tree.


 


In keeping with the purpose of this thread it might be interesting to have some comments (Robert Campbell) just what it is about Dr. Thames’ vision for USM that they so strongly disagree. The following is the link to the Vision statement for USM: http://www.usm.edu/profile/index.htm?PHPSESSID=932551fbc7979619fe15319546ca9415


 


Again my point here is to separate Dr. Thames’ vision for USM from his behavior which I believe has been very counter productive to this stated vision. I will also state again that I believe Dr. Thames may very well be in a situation where the best for all concern is for him to step down. However I strongly disagree with the attacks against those under Dr. Thames which appear to have been instigated for no other reason than an attempt to attack Dr. Thames, i.e. the Dr. Dvorak issue.


 



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"However I strongly disagree with the attacks against those under Dr. Thames which appear to have been instigated for no other reason than an attempt to attack Dr. Thames, i.e. the Dr. Dvorak issue.  "

Curious:


It is my understanding that the investigation into Dr. Dvorak's credentials was not undertaken as an attack on SFT (as has been construed in the media and through various "letters to the editors" from SFT supporters).  The investigation was sparked by a packet of information claiming that Dr. Dvorak had "pumped up" her CV concerning her tenure status at Ashland Community College.  One might also say that the William Kuskin tenure decision that preceded the anonymous packet of info (in which Gary Stringer was privy to the process by which William Kuskin was denied tenure by SFT even though he had been recommended for tenure by everyone else--a very unusual scenario at the best universities) also contributed to the need to clarify Dvorak's credentials.  In other words, if someone is involved in tenure and promotion decisions (especially very controversial ones), but yet has never gone through the process herself, then this cast doubts on her participation in making these decisions.


In all of this mess, the key word is "communication"--something that is sorely lacking in the SFT administration.  If SFT or AD had simply addressed the issue in the first place instead of ignoring it, then it is quite possible USM would've never gotten to the sad place it is now.  Instead of addressing it, there was silence, then legal threats from AD once the story got out to the media, and then...well, you know what happened after that.  This is not the way that someone acts when there is nothing to hide.  *This* is precisely why we are where we are right now...


Just thought I'd "rehash some old issues" here for the sake of clarification.



__________________
Curious

Date:
Permalink Closed


truth4usm/AH,


 


1)       Stringer’s investigation of Dr. Dvorak started before the receipt of the infamous package. This fact came to light during the April 28th hearing and Stringer said nothing to deny this fact.


 


2)       Concerning your statement, “In other words, if someone is involved in tenure and promotion decisions (especially very controversial ones), but yet has never gone through the process herself, then this cast doubts on her participation in making these decisions.” This to me is very fallacious reasoning as I have stated before. Based on this argument the next President of the United States should be selected only by the Ex-Presidents as none of us voters have ever gone through the “process.”  Also the tenure decision was Dr. Thames’, who has gone through the “process”, which itself should demonstrate going through the “process” does not assures one will make the correct decision.


 


 


3)       With regard to Dr. Dvorak’s reaction (“instead of ignoring it”) to the knowledge of her being investigated, I have a very difficult time viewing her reaction as one of ignoring it. It has been anything but. In the university environment, as I believe you are well aware, reputation is everything. Upon Dr. Dvorak learning here reputation was under attack her cautious reaction seems very in keeping with someone who has a degree in law and whose husband is a lawyer. The fact that one reacts in defending one self does not mean they are guilty (This is not the way that someone acts when there is nothing to hide.) Perhaps you disagree with the principle in jurist prudence that one is innocent until proven guilty. I see nothing out of line in Dr. Dvorak’s handling of her own situation.




__________________
USM Sympathizer

Date:
Permalink Closed

Curious,


Your posts have been thoughtful and intelligent and have contributed to the intellectual substance of this board. Although I disagree with some of what you say, I appreciate your participation. 


In academic life, a curriculum vitae is a public document that should be strictly accurate and unambiguous.  The person who puts together the curriculum vitae is offering it for public inspection and is implicitly inviting readers to take it at face value or, if something seems amiss, to investigate it further to establish the facts. 


In the present case, much of the controversy could have been avoided if the person whose vita had been questioned had simply issued an explanation when the vita was challenged.  It was the failure to respond in this simple way that resulted in any damage to reputation that may have come about.



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed


quote:




Originally posted by: Curious
" truth4usm/AH,   1)       Stringer’s investigation of Dr. Dvorak started before the receipt of the infamous package. This fact came to light during the April 28th hearing and Stringer said nothing to deny this fact.  


And, as Dr. Stringer is now effectively "muzzled" (at least for the next 2 years), it will be a while before we hear his entire side of this story, I suppose.  What I gather from his statements is that, because of the Kuskin affair, he started asking people about AD and her background, but no "subversive" investigation truly started until after the packet was received. 


2)       Concerning your statement, “In other words, if someone is involved in tenure and promotion decisions (especially very controversial ones), but yet has never gone through the process herself, then this cast doubts on her participation in making these decisions.” This to me is very fallacious reasoning as I have stated before. Based on this argument the next President of the United States should be selected only by the Ex-Presidents as none of us voters have ever gone through the “process.”  Also the tenure decision was Dr. Thames’, who has gone through the “process”, which itself should demonstrate going through the “process” does not assures one will make the correct decision.    


No, that is not my argument at all.  Tenure decisions are not the same thing as democratic elections.  I think your extension of my argument is fallacious.


Also, I did not state that everyone who goes through the process of tenure makes "correct decisions.  As it concerns AD, it is not about making "correct decisions."  It is about being involved in the process at all.  As it concerns SFT, he went against the recommendations of the entire English Department, the chair of English, the Dean of COAL, and (presumably) the Provost in making his decision against tenure.  This is highly irregular, and not a best practice at top universities.  At top universities, presidents trust their administrators to make good decisions about things like tenure.  Obviously, SFT (acting, perhaps, on AD's advice? though this is just speculation as I know little about the particulars of the Kuskin case) did not trust his administrators and faculty in this case (and many others, as we have seen since). 


3)       With regard to Dr. Dvorak’s reaction (“instead of ignoring it”) to the knowledge of her being investigated, I have a very difficult time viewing her reaction as one of ignoring it. It has been anything but.


I believe it has been well-documented (in fact, in AD's own words) that she did indeed "ignore it" from when the adminstration was first contacted by Glamser until the story broke in the media.  There is at least one article (I believe in the Clarion Ledger) where she stated that she ignored it, because to her it was not an issue.  Then, when the issue came out in the media, her immediate reaction was to threaten to sue anyone who questioned her credentials.  Not the best form of communication in my book. 


In the university environment, as I believe you are well aware, reputation is everything. Upon Dr. Dvorak learning here reputation was under attack her cautious reaction seems very in keeping with someone who has a degree in law and whose husband is a lawyer.


I beg to differ here...her reaction on the information being made public was to act in a highly litigious manner--i.e. to threaten a lawsuit.  That seems neither cautious nor prudent.


The fact that one reacts in defending one self does not mean they are guilty (This is not the way that someone acts when there is nothing to hide.) Perhaps you disagree with the principle in jurist prudence that one is innocent until proven guilty. I see nothing out of line in Dr. Dvorak’s handling of her own situation. "


We will have to agree to disagree here, since this is a matter of opinion.  I believe that, by ignoring a request for clarification of her CV, which would've taken one phone call at most (even a call to say "I'm working on my response" would've been helpful), she created a wall of silence and an atmosphere of suspicion.  Her ensuing threats of litigation did nothing but create a hostile environment in which no communication could take place.  I see everything wrong with AD's handling of the situation.


I'll try to locate that CL article and post a link to it here.





__________________
Sad

Date:
Permalink Closed

The AAUP investigation into Dvorak's credentials was undertaken only after a business ethics professor had told the AAUP how to handle the matter.  If SFT had replied in a timely manner, the whole DVORAK thing would have gone away.  Of course, that still would have left the University with the real problem, i.e Thames himself.  This man is not a leader of people and ultimately a university is about people and ideas.

__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

Found the article:


http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0403/28/ma03.html


Here is the relevant passage (with my bolded text):


"Dvorak said she and Thames then let the situation drop and never responded to Glamser. "I didn't know there was anything to clarify," Dvorak said."


Think about it...all Glamser got was a wall of silence from AD.  Not the most effective way to communicate, as I stated above.


Also this little tidbit from the recently departed risk manager (again, my bolded text):


"Hanbury said the university didn't investigate sooner because the president had been ill and because doing so would have made it appear there was an error."


Now, does this make a bit more sense? 



__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

That remark by the now-departed Hanbury serves to confirm that he was never asked to investigate Angie Dvorak's credentials. He was asked to investigate the investigators, Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer.

To anyone who has seen administrative cover-ups in action, Hanbury's remarks are a dead giveaway.

Robert Campbell

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"
Again my point here is to separate Dr. Thames’ vision for USM from his behavior which I believe has been very counter productive to this stated vision. I will also state again that I believe Dr. Thames may very well be in a situation where the best for all concern is for him to step down. However I strongly disagree with the attacks against those under Dr. Thames which appear to have been instigated for no other reason than an attempt to attack Dr. Thames, i.e. the Dr. Dvorak issue.
 "


I'll agree that the "stated vision" is worthy. But I'll challenge you to find any University that publishes one that isn't "worthy." What bothers me is that Thames' behavior indicates a very different "secret vision" working behind the scenes. I'm not sure Thames himself realizes what it is he's promoting. In other words, he may well be a pawn to advance someone else's "vision" of how the university should operate, what it should do.

Is the "secret vision" to streamline the university to ensure its continued survival, or is it to gut USM so that it will continue to survive only as a much reduced entity? I don't see any big moves to "streamline" or "clean house" at Ole Miss.



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" I'll agree that the "stated vision" is worthy. But I'll challenge you to find any University that publishes one that isn't "worthy." What bothers me is that Thames' behavior indicates a very different "secret vision" working behind the scenes. I'm not sure Thames himself realizes what it is he's promoting. In other words, he may well be a pawn to advance someone else's "vision" of how the university should operate, what it should do. Is the "secret vision" to streamline the university to ensure its continued survival, or is it to gut USM so that it will continue to survive only as a much reduced entity? I don't see any big moves to "streamline" or "clean house" at Ole Miss. "
I don't think Thames' "vision" is so secret...go read my bolded version of the USM vision statement on the other thread.

__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Curious
"Foot Soldier, I did want to make one other final observation. If not for Dr. Dvorak and her predecessor, Dr. Cotten (whom I had hoped at the time would have been selected as President of USM as opposed to Thames) having grown R&D funding from its historical level of around $20 to $30 million a year to now well over $70 million a year, think what the impact would have been on USM during this past four years of state cutbacks and tight budgets. While you may have seen little positive impact in your department I do believe you would have seen a greater decline. The impact to date has just been to keep USM above water as opposed to the sinking ship I believe it would have become with out the increase in R&D funding."

 


Curious,


I'm going to put the cross-subsidy issue (i.e., whether English helps to prop up Polymer Science at USM, or Polymer Science helps to prop up English) on a different thread later on.


Administrative rake-offs from the indirect cost components of grant-funded research also deserve a thread of their own.


In the meantime, I think it is a big mistake to attribute increases in grant and contract-funded research to Vice-Presidents, whether they are widely respected, like Don Cotten, or widely regarded with distrust, like Angie Dvorak.  Clemson pulls in more grant bucks per year than USM, and the numbers have grown rapidly over the last decade, despite a rotating cast of VPs for Research: two nonentities, one egomaniac who blew lots of money on self-congratulatory brochures printed on glossy paper, and one (the current VP) who seems to know his business for the most part.


Vice-Presidents for Research don't do the grant-funded research.  Faculty members do it.


Vice-Presidents for Research don't reward the people who are doing grant-funded research.  Department chairs, deans, and provosts do that.


(The second point needs some amending at USM.  At Southern Mississippi, the VP for Research can punish faculty members who don't promote economic development by recommending that they not be promoted or tenured.  But that's an unusual model for tenure and promotion decisions, and, IMHO, not a particularly good one.  And the VP for Research still doesn't control raises for faculty...as far as we know.)


What Vice-Presidents for Research can do is make sure that services are provided to faculty members who want to apply for grants and contracts, and to faculty members who currently have grants or contracts.   (They also have to be able to deal with regulatory issues such as human subjects protection.)  How USM's Research bureaucracy is performing on those dimensions is unknown to me.  Clemson's has fallen down significantly in some respects, which means that on occasion CU faculty members have obtained grant funding despite the bureaucracy, not because of it.  So how much help do USM faculty members get from Angie Dvorak's bureaucracy, if they are thinking about applying for grants?


Robert Campbell



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"    So how much help do USM faculty members get from Angie Dvorak's bureaucracy, if they are thinking about applying for grants? Robert Campbell"

Well, as far as I know (and my knowledge of USM's grant processes are at least one year out of date), the help that AD and her immediate staff give to faculty members in obtaining grants is about nil.  The help with this comes from USM's Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (about to be renamed due to their merge with the Office of Contracts and Grant Accounting...post-award office, for those of you in the know).  So, pre- and post-award offices are about to merge.  The interesting thing here is that ORSP is the only office directly reporting to VP for Research (at least by the looks of things on the USM website). OCGA used to report to VP for Business (or CFO, as they like to call him now).  Don't know how that's going to work now.


Anyway, the ORSP office provides assistance like finding grants, working on budgets, helping with submission paperwork or electronic submissions (i.e. FastLane for NSF), etc.  but not any actual grant writing (that's the faculty member's job). 


To be honest, it seemed to me that Angie's job was more about Economic Development than Research, while I was there.  And this would make sense, since it sounds like that's where her experience lies.  No one has asked this question yet, but what sort of big grants was Angie the P.I. on before she came to USM?  Are those listed on her CV (they should be)?  I'm only asking...I have no idea what the answer is (this just occured to me).


Didn't mean for this to become so disjointed...just trying to sort out and raise some pertinent issues.  I'll be glad to clarify for anyone. 



__________________
Googler

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"As Curious pointed out, indirects are the real prize from grant money.  This is money that is (mostly) free and clear, for the university to use as it sees fit.  Oh, yes, it is SUPPOSED to pay for overhead costs (facilities and administration or F&A, as they say in the biz), but in reality, it goes first to the Prez, who then designates some of it to go to the VP of Research, some to the Dean, and some to the Dept. chair of the PI (Principle Investigator).  But (to my recollection), it is the President who decides where it all goes.  All of this $$ creates a discretionary fund, as you can imagine, of great proportions.  Don Cotten (former VP of Research, for those out of state) used to use part of his to give seed money to newer faculty members (start-up money for their projects, etc.), and I don't know if Angie continued that practice or not."
I suspect this gigantic discretionary fund is the primary source used to pay the salaries of many of the new administrative positions that have been created in the Thames administration. As has been posted in an earlier thread, if these positions are not listed in the Budget Book, then they are being paid with money from some sort of reserve or discretionary fund.

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"
It's all funny money, in the end, but I'll bet Shelboo figured that out early on, which is why he likes working at a university rather than private industry."


I think this is a sure bet.

Lots of profs figured that out, altho few are as adept at it as SFT.

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"I don't think Thames' "vision" is so secret...go read my bolded version of the USM vision statement on the other thread."


There's more to it than "economic development." You'll be hard-pressed to find a college or university these days that doesn't have "economic development" splattered all thru it's mission & vision statements.

Sometimes I wonder if "economic development" isn't code for something, like "law & order" or "state's rights."

The attacks on the tenure system & shared governance suggest a far more radical vision. Like I said, Thames may be too near-sighted to know about this vision.

__________________
COST faculty

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Googler
"I suspect this gigantic discretionary fund is the primary source used to pay the salaries of many of the new administrative positions that have been created in the Thames administration. As has been posted in an earlier thread, if these positions are not listed in the Budget Book, then they are being paid with money from some sort of reserve or discretionary fund."

I have never heard that grant indirects first go to the president. I doubt seriously that this is so. Half goes to AD and a quarter to the general fund. It is possible that someone could be paid from this money.


The last quarter goes to the college of the PI, where the Dean now rakes off 40% of that quarter, leaving the department with a lousy 15% of the indirects. This is causing major problems in CoST research-intensive departments which rely on that money to hire support staff, provide matching and startup funds, etc.



__________________
present professor

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" There's more to it than "economic development." You'll be hard-pressed to find a college or university these days that doesn't have "economic development" splattered all thru it's mission & vision statements. Sometimes I wonder if "economic development" isn't code for something, like "law & order" or "state's rights." The attacks on the tenure system & shared governance suggest a far more radical vision. Like I said, Thames may be too near-sighted to know about this vision."

yes invictus. I've argued with friends that Shelby really is a tool for at least one powerful element of the Board who have a shared ideology and want to enact it at usm. I've never thought there were any specific orders given or understandings exchanged. These folks simply knew their man -- and he has performed as they expected.


I don;t think Shelby is really that introspective. He is an action guy -- he probably should play the role of Tommy Franks in the movie "Iraq -- the War!"  Except of course, they don't look a whole lot alike . . .



__________________
truth4usm/AH

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: COST faculty
" I have never heard that grant indirects first go to the president. I doubt seriously that this is so. Half goes to AD and a quarter to the general fund. It is possible that someone could be paid from this money. The last quarter goes to the college of the PI, where the Dean now rakes off 40% of that quarter, leaving the department with a lousy 15% of the indirects. This is causing major problems in CoST research-intensive departments which rely on that money to hire support staff, provide matching and startup funds, etc. "
You may be right that the money doesn't go directly to SFT, but who do you think is indebted to him for life for "defending her honor" against "those terrible professors?"  Could it be "that fine lady" who currently has control over 50% of the indirects at USM?

__________________
Beemerphile

Date:
Permalink Closed

I am curious what you all think it would take to force an audit of USM finances? Especially USM Foundation finances, since 2002. Most especially the $9 million that were written off due to "accounting irregularities." Where in Miss. have we heard that before? In what prison is Bernie Ebbers today? Man, you would think some hotshot young reporter would be all over this set of stories like white on rice. Or sh-- on Shelboo. (sorry for being crude)

__________________
Robert Campbell

Date:
Permalink Closed

If Angie Dvorak controls 50% of the indirect cost return money, she could be steering it all kinds of places.


Kickbacks to Shelby Thames are a virtual certainty.


How about Jack Hanbury's gold-plated salary and benefits?  Were they paid for entirely out of indirect cost return money?


We can be reasonably sure that none of it is going to liberal arts departments...


Another item on the Faculty Senate's to-do list over the summer: Ask for a detailed account of where the indirect cost return dollars controlled by the VP for Research are going--and cc Phil Bryant on the request.


Robert Campbell



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Shelby Thames' vision for USM
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard