Sad's remark about the IHL board having no respect for faculty really struck a chord with me. A look back at all that's happened during Shelby' reign reveals a long string of slights. After the Angeline Dvorak investigation, for instance, when the AAUP chapter sent the results of its inquiry to the Board, there was TOTAL SILENCE. NEVER EVEN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT ANYTHING HAD BEEN RECEIVED. The same thing happened in response to the various resolutions passed by the Faculty Senate this spring. That is to say, NOTHING! And the recent resolution calling on the Board to fire Shelby got the same result--NOTHING. Even USM faculty members who attended the recent Board meeting had no opportunity to address the Board, who were too interested in meddling with Larry Templeton's contract to notice that USM is burning to the ground.
This is all just too bizarre. It's, well, tacky. I can't imagine why any academic would want to come to work in a state where they would be subject to such utter contempt from those ostensibly in charge. Is the AAUP national group going to address this issue at all? What about the executive committee of Phi Beta Kappa? Are they content to have a chapter (Ole Miss's) functioning under a board that so obviously lacks respect for the professors whose credentials make the existence of the chapter possible?
I wish those who intend to try meeting with Board members good luck. But I'm not holding my breath until such meetings occur.

The AAUP Mississippi Conference executive committee members met with Potter when he first became the commissioner.  His advice was for individual faculty, or in small groups, to arrange meetings with individual IHL Board members.  Perhaps now is the time, particularly since the board was in closed executive session for such a long time on Thursday,with Thames in the room.  While Klumb and a few others are holding the line right now, perhaps things can change.

Even though I was dismayed by the lack of acknowledgment of the board that USM faculty were available for comments, I still cannot bring myself to believe that everyone on the board wants to destroy USM or turn it into some weird experiment in how to commercialize state universities and offer little more than workforce training.

For you PUCers who read this message board, I hope you can now see how much the two PUC meetings helped keep Thames in power.  The statement that Klumb read was quite clear.  You must take positive action on Wednesday.

Amy and all: I think the idea of working with individual IHL board members is a really good one.  How to we identify which ones might be receptive to meeting with some of us (I'd think a few folks--small groups--from USM might be nice--I'd feel an awful lot of pressure if, for example, I ended up in a room with one IHL member)?  How to make this happen?   "Willing to Help," how might we bring this about?  I do think a lot of people here are more than willing to do this.  Like Amy, I can't believe that the whole CBoard is out to tank USM, though it's clear there are many members who are (I just can't get this despairing--I couldn't survive with the belief that it's all hopeless and pointless).    So how to make this work?

Another point, slightly off topic but picking up on something Amy said: the PUC is indeed being deployed as a tool by the administration, as many of us knew it would be.  I am really concerned about the possibility that policy would begin emerging here--others have raised this issue, but it's worth restating.   I believe that many people who have been appointed to PUC have worthy goals and are trying hard.  But many (most?) lack the experience that membership on the many other elected committees on campus have, and thus lack the knowledge of what sorts of debates and recommendations have emerged regarding matters like the Faculty Handbook, etc.   (Did other colleges get "official" word on who their PUC members were?  Contact information so that you could pass comments, queries, concerns, etc., onto them?)  PUC members are in a very difficult position--"representing" folks who didn't elect them, and navigating very complex and murky procedural waters.   At the very least, I would urge (as others have) the committee to IMMEDIATELY remake itself along the lines that others, including Amy, have suggested, with current members being replaced IMMEDIATELY by members of various elected bodies.   But in the end, I can't imagine that--no matter how hard people try--this committee can function meaningfully now that it's been used so obviously as a PR ploy.   I don't mean to tread on toes here, but . . . I also have to say I find it odd that we've stopped all discussion of the PUC on the board, and that we've not heard from PUC members of late. 

NO QUARTER.

EW 

p.s. Anne Wallace is so often correct!!!!