Grotesque Despair

Date: May 20, 2004

Grotesque Despair

Date: May 20, 2004

GD,

Thames will be your president...

but that doesn't mean you have to accept him.

Will most of the faculty accept him, even if the Board keeps cleaning up his messes for another two years?

Robert Campbell

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Grotesque Despair
" Now we actually have to set aside all hope of being rid of Thames for the next two years (barring another Thamesian mistake). "

But this is like saying, "barring the possibility that the sun will come up tomorrow."

A reason for optimism: they did NOT, as had been rumored, extend his contract for four more years. Now THAT would have been a cause for grotesque despair! I bet that he is more on the ropes than he would like to be; his statements of conciliation after the meeting suggest that he knows his position is still ultimately at risk. He is not, after all, a man who conciliates willingly. See Amy Young's report for a nuanced sense of what went on than is provided in the news accounts.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" But this is like saying, "barring the possibility that the sun will come up tomorrow." A reason for optimism: they did NOT, as had been rumored, extend his contract for four more years. Now THAT would have been a cause for grotesque despair! I bet that he is more on the ropes than he would like to be; his statements of conciliation after the meeting suggest that he knows his position is still ultimately at risk. He is not, after all, a man who conciliates willingly. See Amy Young's report for a nuanced sense of what went on than is provided in the news accounts."

USM Sympathizer,

Please provide link to Amy Young's report.

In addition, Regarding the comments on WDAM by SFT to "communicate" with faculty, staff and students. Faculty Senate should issue a statement (or challange) to establishing meetings (with faculty senate), and getting answers to concerns (academic freedom, e-mail monitoring. "new" rumor about faculty contracts, issues related to tenure/promotion, etc) Also a challange to the PUC: If SFT is truly sincere and wants to communicate with campus stakeholders, disband the PUC and have SFT "communicate" with the elected reps of the faculty, staff and student government.

Date: May 20, 2004

I have heard that the next scheduled PUC is Wednesday afternoon. I strongly encourage all interested parties to attend.

I sent a rather strongly worded request to Bobby Middlebrooks, who was designated the "facilitator" of PUC that he should encourage the PUCers to come to the table with enought relevant data to carry on an intelligent and thoughtful discussion of whatever issues they might address. I was somewhat appalled at the lack of information that the group had regarding the faculty handbook draft. This is a VERY important issue and to discuss (and possibly decide) in ignorance and haste is, in my humble opinion, the hallmark of the current administration.

I encourage all to email the PUCers and get those disclosure questions on the agenda for Wed.!

I suggested to Middlebrooks also that the executive committees of FacSen, Staff Council, SGA, and others comprise PUC rather than the appointees.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
"that he should encourage the PUCers to come to the table with enought relevant data to carry on an intelligent and thoughtful discussion of whatever issues they might address. I was somewhat appalled at the lack of information that the group had regarding the faculty handbook draft. "

Perhaps you could indicate here or o the AAUP website a brief outline of the key "issues" before the Faculty Senate and the "positions" on those issues that the Senate has taken, and thus educate us all, including the PUC people.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
"that he should encourage the PUCers to come to the table with enought relevant data to carry on an intelligent and thoughtful discussion of whatever issues they might address. I was somewhat appalled at the lack of information that the group had regarding the faculty handbook draft. "

Perhaps you could indicate here or o the AAUP website a brief outline of the key "issues" before the Faculty Senate and the "positions" on those issues that the Senate has taken, and thus educate us all, including the PUC people.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" A reason for optimism: they did NOT, as had been rumored, extend his contract for four more years. "

I could be wrong, but I believe Thames will be 69 when his current 4 years are up, and I believe there is a mandatory retirement at 70, so giving him 4 more years is impossible in any case. As I say, this could be wrong.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
"I have heard that the next scheduled PUC is Wednesday afternoon. I strongly encourage all interested parties to attend. I sent a rather strongly worded request to Bobby Middlebrooks, who was designated the "facilitator" of PUC that he should encourage the PUCers to come to the table with enought relevant data to carry on an intelligent and thoughtful discussion of whatever issues they might address. I was somewhat appalled at the lack of information that the group had regarding the faculty handbook draft. This is a VERY important issue and to discuss (and possibly decide) in ignorance and haste is, in my humble opinion, the hallmark of the current administration. I encourage all to email the PUCers and get those disclosure questions on the agenda for Wed.! I suggested to Middlebrooks also that the executive committees of FacSen, Staff Council, SGA, and others comprise PUC rather than the appointees."

Amy, I love your hard work and devotion to this very good cause. I do have a major concern about the PUC which your post highlights: the PUC is not qualified nor authorized to be dealing with the issues (much less setting/agreeing to new policy) that you outline above. It seems to me that rather than train still another constituency about the issues and about what has already been rightly proposed by the faculty senate that we must demand that PUC be dissolved immediately. It is clearly in way over its head and it is being used dreadfully by SFT.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Dog Tired
"I could be wrong, but I believe Thames will be 69 when his current 4 years are up, and I believe there is a mandatory retirement at 70, so giving him 4 more years is impossible in any case. As I say, this could be wrong."

I believe it was established that Thames is 68, so he'll be 70 then.

However, mandatory retirement for faculty is no longer allowed. I don't know about administrators.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
" I believe it was established that Thames is 68, so he'll be 70 then. However, mandatory retirement for faculty is no longer allowed. I don't know about administrators. Robert Campbell"

The press conference with Klumb and Thames was very subdued. Remember they were in there for over 2-1/2 hours so clearly there were significant conversations. Thames did not give his banty rooster imitiation and hasn't for quite some time.

We haven't seen the old arrogant Thames since the hearing really. And it cannot be easy to be making these "peace" moves. After all, he thinks he won . . .

Roy delivered his short message and left. He did not hang around to offer Shelby any public support, a hand on the shoulder, anything in the way od visible support beyond the official statement of the Board. And he did not look happy at all. There has been damage. Bet on it.

I think Thames wings have been significantly clipped for the moment. It remains to be seen how permanent the damage is. It is possible that the Board has either given him notice he is on a very short timeline to fix things or they may already be well on their way to easing him out. But Klumb may have successfully pulled off a delay.

I think it highly unlikely the Board is going to publically fire him. For one thing, the Board would be less than responsible if it doesn't have a sucessor lined up right away. If we are to see him go, it will be in a series slow and subtle nudges over the next few months I think -- unless the board has decided that they can live with him for two years if his sails are trimmed well back.

On the other hand --- it is hard to tell. This is not just a battle for Thames. Klumb has used a huge amount of political capital to support Thames in public and he has just upped the ante with his attempt to interfere in the State AD rehiring. He can't really afford to lose as that would damage his presidential year and his ambitions to create significant change in the academic programs of the universities . . .

Date: May 20, 2004

Stephen,

Thank you for the eyewitness report.

It may well be that both Thames and Klumb have taken some hits behind the scenes.

But Thames will not be able to remain in a conciliatory mode for very long, even if he's been told that the Board will find treat him as a liability if he doesn't.

As for Klumb, the more often he has to defend Thames in public, the worse it will get for him.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: stephen judd
I think it highly unlikely the Board is going to publically fire him. For one thing, the Board would be less than responsible if it doesn't have a sucessor lined up right away. If we are to see him go, it will be in a series slow and subtle nudges over the next few months I think...

I know that IHL is the body that would officialy axe SFT, but does anyone know how much, if any, official and/or unofficial sway the state legislative committee/s concerning education have with the board? I know absolutely nothing about it, but, for what it's worth, I recently heard from a really good source that there are some legislators involved in those areas that are VERY unhappy and want SFT gone by summer's end.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
""

Bob:

See my reply to your query in "Chain Upset with Doty" thread.

I agree with you about the period of "conciliation".

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: AmLitChick
""

well, if that is true and you know who they are then I'd write them and maybe find a way to put them in touch with this Board and maybe some of the people on it . . .

Maybe your friends can help?

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" well, if that is true and you know who they are then I'd write them and maybe find a way to put them in touch with this Board and maybe some of the people on it . . . Maybe your friends can help? "

I can't give specifics, but from what I heard they're already aware and following the situation closely. A faint glimmer of hope, anyway.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Dog Tired
"I could be wrong, but I believe Thames will be 69 when his current 4 years are up, and I believe there is a mandatory retirement at 70, so giving him 4 more years is impossible in any case. As I say, this could be wrong."

No, "Dog Tired," there is no mandatory retirement at 70. That would most certainly be age discrimination. Some unproductive academicians should find another career or retire at 29, while the productive ones should retire at 109 if they wish to work that long. Age, gender, religion, race -none of these are to be the basis for termination of employment.

Date: May 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" Thames did not give his banty rooster imitiation and hasn't for quite some time. We haven't seen the old arrogant Thames since the hearing really. And it cannot be easy to be making these "peace" moves. After all, he thinks he won . . . "

This is as fanciful interpretation of the day's events as can be imagined. While I loath and despise Thames and practically every other administrator above chair level (and some below), I am not dull-witted enough to think we’ve "won" anything. We were creamed. Stringer and Glamser gave us up for dead (and, as others have said, I might have done the same under the same pressure), and Thames has subsequently killed us with the PUC (which many here have chatted amiably about while it was being used to prove his "good faith" to the IHL board). Yes, he was probably called on the carpet a little. Sticks and stones. You can be sure he’s yucking it up tonight. He is the president now and for the next two years at a minimum. It's time to fold up this board or redesign it to handle the new reality. My problem is I can't imagine what the new reality is, how we're going to do anything now that we've been so completely vanquished. He has all the d**n cards and he can (and will) do almost whatever he wants. Outspoken faculty members will be visited with new workloads, new reviews, new troubles. We will all suffer in this now legitimized mayhem that is the Thames administration. Ignorance and narrowness reigns.

Sorry to be so negative.

Date: May 22, 2004

See my post on the "Anne Wallace is right" thread. It's absolutely imperative that a way be found to expose the Board's refusal to admit the existence of faculty and to pressure them to participate in a dialogue. Again I ask, where's the national AAUP? G&S may have let us down in the settlement, but the issues that were at stake--freedom of speech, the obligation to pursue the suspicion of credentials fraud, the legitimacy of AAUP membership and purposes--still remain and need to be pursued.

Date: May 22, 2004

Where is AAUP national? They have written another letter to the IHL Board, I hope to get a copy soon and on the AAUP website. I don't have a digital copy. AAUP national will be slow, but inexorable, I think.

I believe that the best way to continue to insist that AAUP is legitimate is to get folks to join. I hope that MSU will revitalize their chapter. They seem quite motivated now. I do not believe that the faculty saw Templeton as any sort of threat to academics, in fact, quite the opposite.

Date: May 22, 2004

Come on Grotesque Despait.....It is time to give Stringer/Glamser a break. I know one of them very well, and he went through absolute hell trying to do the right thing for the University. Isn't it obvious? Though they might have been reinstated, we still would have had Thames. Let that go. There's more work to do.

Date: May 22, 2004

They were reinstated.

Date: May 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Laughing out loud
"Come on Grotesque Despait.....It is time to give Stringer/Glamser a break. I know one of them very well, and he went through absolute hell trying to do the right thing for the University. Isn't it obvious? Though they might have been reinstated, we still would have had Thames. Let that go. There's more work to do."

Glamser and Stringer have been heroes. Until you are thrown into the hot coals of the cooking pot (even when it allows noxious fumes to spill from it) - you have NO IDEA how painfull the process becomes. Frank, Gary, I tip my hat to you and please know that the majority of the USM community knows that you had to "settle" on some deal that would let you, and your families, live on a "comfomfortable basis" for a continuing amount of time (I WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE DEAL TOO UNLESS EITHER ONE WAS RELATED TO A SELFSUSTAINING MILLIONAIRE). NO QUARTER. NO QUARTER. Until my own dying breath NO QUARTER.

Date: May 22, 2004

I am troubled by two postings on this thread:

Grumpy & growly posted:

". . . Stringer and Glamser gave us up for dead . . ."

T. Miles posted:

"G&S may have let us down, in the settlement . . ."

These are very strong statements to make about two men, such as Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser, who risked their professional careers, livelihood, and personal welfare for the entire University community. Please tell me: How did they give you up for dead? How did they let you down?

Date: May 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: First Ant at the Picnic
"I am troubled by two postings on this thread: Grumpy & growly posted: ". . . Stringer and Glamser gave us up for dead . . ." T. Miles posted: "G&S may have let us down, in the settlement . . ." These are very strong statements to make about two men, such as Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser, who risked their professional careers, livelihood, and personal welfare for the entire University community. Please tell me: How did they give you up for dead? How did they let you down? "

CORRECTION: The statement attributed to "T. Miles" in the above post should have been attributed to "T.C. Mits." I appologize for that typing error.

Date: May 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: First Ant at the Picnic
"I am troubled by two postings on this thread: Grumpy & growly posted: ". . . Stringer and Glamser gave us up for dead . . ." T. Miles posted: "G&S may have let us down, in the settlement . . ." These are very strong statements to make about two men, such as Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser, who risked their professional careers, livelihood, and personal welfare for the entire University community. Please tell me: How did they give you up for dead? How did they let you down? "

Great post, First Ant. I can do nothing but add my voice to yours. Let's stop this in-fighting and concentrate on the goal: FIRE SHELBY THAMES!

NO QUARTER!

Date: May 22, 2004

We are missing the Golden Opportunity!! SFT has been emasculated by the IHL Board. He has been told that "We backed you on this one, but no more controversy." Now, he has put into effect some lame measures that he can sell to the Board as peace offerings. Shebby wants to hang in there for the remaining two years of his contract and ride into the sunset.

Will we let him do this to us??? If we do, we will tell any new President that we can be steamrolled during the "honeymoon" period where we will be irreparably harmed thereafter.

NO QUARTER!!!

Date: May 23, 2004

I'm told by a very good source that no one on the IHL Board has been fooled by the PUC. The board will move at its own pace on this, but it will move, I am confident. Have faith: "The worst is not so long as we can say 'This is the worst'."

quote:

Originally posted by: Old Timer
"We are missing the Golden Opportunity!! SFT has been emasculated by the IHL Board. He has been told that "We backed you on this one, but no more controversy." Now, he has put into effect some lame measures that he can sell to the Board as peace offerings. Shebby wants to hang in there for the remaining two years of his contract and ride into the sunset. Will we let him do this to us??? If we do, we will tell any new President that we can be steamrolled during the "honeymoon" period where we will be irreparably harmed thereafter. NO QUARTER!!!"