Any word from the PUC meeting yet?

Date: May 12, 2004

Any word from the PUC meeting yet?

Date: May 12, 2004

bumping it up...any news?

Date: May 12, 2004

The medical examiner hasn't left the room yet

Date: May 12, 2004

From a Faculty Senator who attended:

Dear colleagues:

I just left the first meeting of PUC, needless to say, prematurely, i.e., prior its conclusion. I imagine that you are eager to know what is going on and I certainly need to vent. It was probably the most bizarre experience I have had at USM.
First, I was there as a guest, not a member. I was about 10 min late. When I peeked in, I saw a few press people, visitors at the back wall and two or three seats empty next to the President. He waved for me to sit there, so I did. He sad he was glad I came (he does not know me personally) and threw a handful of those menthol candies, which I usually use to beat the bad taste in my mouth, in front of me. I noticed that everybody had a small pile of those, in addition to a thin notepad.
A black lady in a business suit was talking - since I was late I only heard she was a newly hired interim director of something. Her talk was about - you guessed it - communicating. She promptly asked for two volunteers from the mostly stone-faced membership of PUC. After some hesitation and additional nudging - yes, just like in the kindergarten - two people stepped forward and received brief whispered instructions on what to do. One volunteer left the room and the second started approximately like this: "Turn your notepad to an empty page. Now take a pencil and draw a horizontal rectangle about 1.5" by 2.5" in the middle of the page, a little to the left. Now connect the upper left corner with the lower right corner and then do the same with the other two corners. So you will have a kind of X sign in the rectangle. Now draw a vertical rectangle, about 1 by 3, on the left side of the horizontal one, so that they touch." It would be too draining to go through the details. At the end we were supposed to have about 4 or 5 rectangular shapes in some kind of pattern. My guess is that this was supposed to show the importance and - at the same time - lability of verbal communication (the volunteer was not allowed to use hands, just words). But what did it for me was when the second volunteer, Tom Fraschillo, came in and started a long talk involving his growing up, his child and his dog and geometry. And you guessed it right again: shortly, he asked us to turn to an empty page and start drawing rectangular shapes... That is when I left the room (I spent there about 20 minutes!).
I cannot believe that all those educated adults, including a few deans, were sitting through this without rolling their eyes a single time. Perhaps they all liked the temporary regress to the innocence of childhood or perhaps they were mesmerized by the simplicity and emptiness of that exercise (might it have been a kind of zen meditation?), I don't know. I am sorry that I left with pessimism, I just could not see any possible tangible outcome. I hope that other senators that were among the audience were able to stay longer and they will tell us the end.

Date: May 12, 2004

Can someone else please verify this extremely bizarre tale?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Newgirl
"From a Faculty Senator who attended: Dear colleagues: I just left the first meeting of PUC, needless to say, prematurely, i.e., prior its conclusion. I imagine that you are eager to know what is going on and I certainly need to vent. .

This has got to be a spoof. This can't be what happened in the PUC meeting. Come on.......

Date: May 12, 2004

Did they join hands and sing Kumbayah at the conclusion?

Date: May 12, 2004

Straaaaaaange

Reminds me of touchy-feely team building workshops.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Magnolia
""

Its from the Faculty Senate listserve...take it to the bank.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"Straaaaaaange Reminds me of touchy-feely team building workshops."

My thoughts exactly. I worked for a Fortune 500 company for years and when ever they brought in the touchy-feely team it meant the person at the top didn't know how to do their job so they looked to outsiders to teach us all how to "communicate."

When the team was productive, happy and making money we didn't have these meetings. But when things were going down the crapper, it was time to bring in the "experts." When you have to bring in consultants to teach you how to run your business, it's clear the person in charge doesn't know how to run it.

Date: May 12, 2004

There is a reason it's called PUC (puke).

Newgirl said she was a bit late. So I'll describe the first few minutes of PUC.

In a nutshell, Thames came in and said we need to communicate but didn't really know what to do, but Wanda from HR called and said she'd like to help and Thames turned the meeting over to Wanda. Wanda proceeded to do a very lame workshop on communication and team building. It was absolutely gut-wrenching. In my opinion, the only person in that room who needed a workshop on communication was the portly president.

The CoAl faculty rep said we need to just move on past all this. Luckily there was someone there with backbone, the graduate student from COH who essentially said, hell no, we are here BECAUSE of all the problems and we need to address them.

I was watching Trellis Green during the workshop, and in my opinion, he looked like he'd wanted to chew nails.

It was disgusting.

Date: May 12, 2004

Another report from a Senator:

We were there for the entire meeting. it was just as previously descibed. if there was anyone in the room who needed to hear about communication it was shelby, but what are the chances he learned
anything? we also learned who are our allies and who are not. a grad student, david johnson, and trellis green both sought to get some substantive issues discussed, but the CoAL rep, tom fraschillo,
"didn't want to rehash old issues." i think we CoAl reps on facsen should communicate with mr. fraschillo and find out exactly what he thinks PUC should be dealing with. as he is our rep, we should also communicate to him what we think PUC should be dealing with (the old issues, perhaps).
they also decided to set up a listserv to facilitate the scheduling of the next meeting and the working out of the agenda. perhaps they will address substantive issues later, but it wasn't to
be today. in my opinion, this is waste of university, faculty, student and
staff time and resources. we already have bodies to allow communication with the administration. the creation of a new body does nothing to solve the communication problem created by thames himself.

it's a farce and i would encourage the members to refuse to participate in it.

p.s. if you are listening, shelby, i suggest that if you want to talk, you come talk to the true reps of the faculty - the facsen. and bring
that info we have requested. it would be a true act of healing and it would be the civil thing to do.

Date: May 12, 2004

Was the press there reporting this fiasco?

I apologize in advance, but I just want to sing:

Help me Wanda, help help me Wanda!
Help me Wanda, help help me Wanda!
Help me Wanda, please get him out of my life!

You know the tune.

Date: May 12, 2004

At first I (like others) assumed that the initial lengthy description had to be a parody; I guess I should have known that what it described was so bad and godawful funny that it had to be true. Does it not bother SFT that he is destroying his own dignity in the process of ruining the university? This meeting sounds like something fit for Saturday Night Live.

Date: May 12, 2004

Just wanted to add, given what has been reported about Fraschillo on other threads, his behavior is not at all surprising. I'm not sure they could have picked a worse rep for CoAL.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"This meeting sounds like something fit for Saturday Night Live."

As Advocate pointed out, this sort of "team building activity" is very common in corporate America & also at colleges that are having problems. Maybe it is something fit for SNL, though...

I'm really surprised in retrospect that the PUC didn't meet at an off-campus site for a "retreat."

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Newgirl
"a grad student, david johnson, and trellis green both sought to get some substantive issues discussed, but the CoAL rep, tom fraschillo, "didn't want to rehash old issues." "

Go, David Johnson! So glad you spoke the truth! Don't let them get away with this Bogus Charade #2!

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" As Advocate pointed out, this sort of "team building activity" is very common in corporate America & also at colleges that are having problems. Maybe it is something fit for SNL, though... I'm really surprised in retrospect that the PUC didn't meet at an off-campus site for a "retreat." "

Invictus . . . you're giving them Ideas!! Their current "ideas" appear to be pretty lame at this point.

I've got a cousin who works as stage crew for SNL - hmmm. Could work.

Date: May 12, 2004

Question: Who attended?

Answer from a Senator: tom landsford represented faculty from the coast. trellis green, bobby
middlebrooks, fraschillo and tammy greer (an asst prof in edpysch)were the only faculty i can remember. there was also a staff member
(sheila white?) from the coast.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Newgirl
"Question: Who attended? Answer from a Senator: tom landsford represented faculty from the coast. trellis green, bobby middlebrooks, fraschillo and tammy greer (an asst prof in edpysch)were the only faculty i can remember. there was also a staff member (sheila white?) from the coast. "

Wasn't Bobby Middlebrooks the former Dean of Graduate School who was then promoted to some Associate Provost position a while back? Can someone fill in the details?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Newgirl
"Question: Who attended? Answer from a Senator: tom landsford represented faculty from the coast. trellis green, bobby middlebrooks, fraschillo and tammy greer (an asst prof in edpysch)were the only faculty i can remember. there was also a staff member (sheila white?) from the coast. "

And we also know that David Johnson, grad student from COH was there, too.

Date: May 12, 2004

I'm going to try to be optimistic here. OK, so they had a touchy-feely communications lesson. After the learning "experience" did they do any real communicating? Was anything of importance discussed? Were any issues addressed? When is the next meeting and who will set the agenda? What will be the forum for bringing up ideas for discussion? Was any of this covered? Will Wanda be the moderator for all future meetings to ensure everyone feels free to "communicate?" Was anything positive accomplished?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Wasn't Bobby Middlebrooks the former Dean of Graduate School who was then promoted to some Associate Provost position a while back? Can someone fill in the details?"

bobby's a good guy -- more later

Date: May 12, 2004

Tammy Greer is actually a good person too. Her appointment, however, makes quite a bit of sense. I'm having one of those AHA moments.

Date: May 12, 2004

From a Senator:

Yes, the press was there.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"bobby's a good guy -- more later"

Not casting doubts...just trying to fill in the blanks. Help me out!

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: educator
"Tammy Greer is actually a good person too. Her appointment, however, makes quite a bit of sense. I'm having one of those AHA moments."

Help me on this one, too.

Date: May 12, 2004

I just got off the phone with the HA. You can imagine some of my comments.

Wanda said at the outset of the meeting that they were not there to cover any "issues" yet. I just got a report from someone in COH that David Johnson is supposed to set up the next meeting (and get with Shelboo about that).

Nothing substantive was discussed at the PUC except that Fraschillo said we need to move on and Johnson said we need to discuss all these problems.

Other than that, just the workshop.

My favorite part was the video. A guy in a suit with a redneck accent discussed changes in life and how they all lead to something called S.E.E.
Essentially standing for signficant emotional (can't remember what the last "e" stood for). Anyway, significant emotions due to change occur in private and in professional life and lead to five stages. The first stage is shock or denial. But who cares? The LAST stage is acceptance. I found the message about acceptance particularly enlightening. We can accept the train of change by laying down on the tracks and getting run over OR we can accept by deciding to get on board.

Since it was a video, I couldn't raise my hand and ask "What if it's just a train wreck?"

But this was yet another feeble-minded attempt at trying to paint the faculty as resistant to change.

NOT TRUE. I have some suggestions for change starting with the removal of Thames!

Date: May 12, 2004

Check out Fraschillo's role in the Pood selection for some interesting history and insight.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" Help me on this one, too."

Tammy arrived at USM in 1996 and is a tenured assoc. prof in Psychology. She has a strong working relationship with the Assoc. Dean of CoEP Mitch Berman who is an equally great guy, his new position (he came from the Psych Dept.) was not the result of a national search btw.

Pierce, Berman, Greer . . . as long as they stand for something, they won't fall for anything. They do share the same mantra.

Date: May 12, 2004

"the train of change".............. nice wordsmithing !!

"in the absence of understanding there is a proliferation of slogans and catchy phrases" from one of the quality professionals of the '90's

Date: May 12, 2004

Any public school teacher would have recognized the exercise as one of those in-service training things that administrators think are so creative. I'm told that next you may be asked to draw a geometric shape that best fits your personality.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"Any public school teacher would have recognized the exercise as one of those in-service training things that administrators think are so creative. I'm told that next you may be asked to draw a geometric shape that best fits your personality."

Or tell what animal you are most like.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Just thought I'd ask...can't imagine that the meeting will last more than an hour. Updates?"

A report from Trellis Green:

I don't know what to say really.

Peter missed the two films.

Although I must admit I was at first offended at what was happening, I can't find the right words, I stayed and gave it a chance. I was put on this body and I will see it through, unless I cannot make a contribution for the good of the faculty and my college and for USM as a university. I have always tried to put USM first.

Frankly, when I went over, I was prepared for a
logistics and agenda setting session, a
getting-to-know one another session. I was not
prepared for the management training films and role playing that ensued.

In retrospect, I can see the "purpose" for which it may have been intended, but I was caught off guard like many others.

I think this group we have is a good one Peter. I
think most of us went there with issues (or
"concerns"), but I also knew this would come later.
So, I was not too surprised that we didn't discuss
specific ways to improve communication and concerns we have as a university in being the kind of institution that we all long for.

I think the communication message that was conveyed in the rather "unconventional" way does show a concern by someone to learn communication skills.

I think we will be able to discuss some things that can do some good. I will do my best.

I will, with all due respect, communicate my focus, which evolved thru the training films shown in the first meeting. The film focused on reactions to
organizational change. I have seen these types of
films before. The assumption was that this is USM's problem. The film may be well and good for problems uniquely assocated with sudden, unwanted change.

However, USM's problem as I see it is not the "change" from restructuring. I think the President may not realize this. We got by that long ago and with so many changes coming so fast, we learned to cope and adapt fairly well I think. The training "video" harped on five steps in the process of change in organizations. I did not agree with some of it and I agreed with some of it. For example, we are not "grieving" as the film suggested (from the changes), we have low "morale" from a certain style of management.

I feel this is important to communicate to
administration and for faculty to discuss in a non
threatening forum, where I think respect for differing opinions will be encouraged.

The problem here at USM is simple: it's not that
changes were made, it is HOW those changes were made. It involves many of the "advisors" as well, and the quality of and motives behind that advice. This is my opinion. I think it is a commonly held opinion.

Since communication is a two way street, we can
discuss better cooperation with the duly elected
faculty bodies in our handbook, like the Faculty
Senate, Staff Council, etc. Listening to faculty is important and we can convey that message and show how important that is to leadership.

I see these as a succinct and profound issues to
convey to Dr. Thames at a time that he may listen.

Date: May 12, 2004

I think Trellis Green's report is well worth reading. I, too, was caught a bit off guard by the 'workshop' presented by Wanda Naylor. Having been a corporate leadership development consultant in years past, this was nothing new to me, but maybe it was to someone in the room.

What no one has reported yet is that at the end of her presentation Wanda asked us to split into groups by student, faculty, or staff and each group to select a "team leader" through whom communications would come. When we regathered, I objected to being 'ghetto-ized' in this fashion and expressed my contention that we were all there for the same goals and on the team as one. Several members supported this and the team leader stuff went away very quickly.

I'm still keeping an open mind...though it gets increasingly difficult. I had the chance to speak with several faculty (both observers and PUCers) after the meeting...maybe the more fruitful part of the morning. HA reporter called me this afternoon. If he misquotes me, I'll beat him.

Like Trellis, I still believe we may have an opportunity here for constructive dialogue. At least one member from faculty (I'm not mentioning names) apparently thinks we no longer have any issues to discuss, which makes me wonder why he agreed to serve. Others seemed to think we could wait a month for the next meeting. I'm afraid I was a bit forceful on that one and pressed meeting again prior to Dr. Thames meeting with IHL next Wed./Thurs. Interestingly, a number of people came without their calendars...perhaps not expecting to ever meet again?

The next meeting will be either Monday or Tuesday in Union H. As soon as I have compiled all the responses from members as to the preferable day, I will let everyone know the meeting day and time. The meetings are open. Someone expressed the desire that these meetings remain 'transparent' to the community. Absolutely agree on that point. Bobby Middlebrooks said he thought we ought to be working towards putting ourselves "out of business," which I take to mean resolving it quickly and there being no need to go further...or getting Dr. Thames back into communication with the elected bodies...either of which is a good outcome as far as I am concerned.

Hope this post was helpful. I can't say enought to thank those of you who have been supportive the last 24 hours. We'll hang in there a while longer.

DJ

Date: May 12, 2004

Thanks to you and Trellis for excellent reports.

It seems that President Thames is now taking Faculty Senate's advice of getting a facilitator, although it is about a year later.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"Thanks to you and Trellis for excellent reports. It seems that President Thames is now taking Faculty Senate's advice of getting a facilitator, although it is about a year later. "

Depending on whom he chooses, that could be a very good thing. Source?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
"Depending on whom he chooses, that could be a very good thing. Source?"

That was just my take on what went on at the PUC today. If he adopts the suggestion on how to communicate, he would be consulting faculty = shared governance.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
" That was just my take on what went on at the PUC today. If he adopts the suggestion on how to communicate, he would be consulting faculty = shared governance."

I appreciate the good intentions of those who attended and of those who have had the courage to post those intentions here. But the reality of this Council after today could not be more stark and I do hope that whatever the intentions are we do not forget the fundamental facts about this Council.

One) The President's University Council is the only university organization with direct access to the president at present.

Two) As the only access to the president at present it is the only mechanism for the creation of healing, the only current means by which this university can spark conversation, and dialogue: two fundamental attributes of higher education in any form.

The way this Council was established and the events of its first meeting today prove only that the very idea of free and open inquiry and debate, the very foundation of all of our social institutions in this country, are not to be tolerated on this campus.

What sort of dialogue can emerge when only one of the two sides in this conversation, the administration, gets to pick the people with whom they will converse? The deans in this story --are--the administration. They picked the attendees. The biggest college in the university is Arts and Letters and no vote for a representative occured there. Indeed, to this very minute Dean Pood has never officially by email or letter informed the college who its representatives are. So whom do they represent? Representatives are supposed to speak the will of their consituents. Did ours? How could he? We don't even know officially that he was chosen. This is not, in short, a conversation: it is a monologue. The aministration has chosen to speak to those whom it considers safe. The very premise of higher education is free and open exchange of ideas. And the structure of this committe by definition no matter who is on it defeats that very premise.

Also, today's forum for "free and open exchange of ideas" was a controlled environment where questions and discussion were serverly limited: where a "show," and a "performance" masqueraded as a conversation. If there was to be free and open debate then why was Mr Johnson not allowed to engage in a debate?

I am sorry to say that the fundamental premise of this Council is inherently onesided, anti-democratic, and charged entirely with the task of subverting the central tenet of American society and higher education: free and open debate and inquiry among parties that often disagree. The fact that an American university would so boldly challenge and subvert the every premise of our society is nothing short of disgusting. To participate in this is a fool's errand.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jonthan Barron
"
...
One) The President's University Council is the only university organization with direct access to the president at present. ...
"

Jonthan,
Just one correction. Faculty Senate (FS) still has direct access to the president through monthly meeting, which were to resume after the hearings, but FS was not prepared to meet. The next meeting is scheduled for June. Of course, it could be canceled in light of the recent vote.

Date: May 12, 2004

I agree, conversation is a 2 way dialogue where the shareholders share the stakes. If SFT doesn't get the "conversation" that he wants, this little group will be disbanded as well. PUC=Shelby's Club and that is not said to belittle those who are participating. I'm happy that some people are trying to make this "real" and once again, if it did become real for all parties involved that would be great. But, I want every one of those council members to sit there with SFT and think really hard about this -- are you actually saying what's truly on your mind? Can you do that? What are the consequences (short and long term) if you do? If the PUC could actually heal USM, that would be great - but then again I'd play that Powerball if I thought there was an actual chance I'd strike it rich with the winning numbers.

Date: May 12, 2004

Who are we kidding here? The damage is done, and despite what Shelby does with the Meyers-Briggs and drawing rectangles, no substantial number of faculty even CARE what happened in that ridiculous meeting. It's not even worth reporting on, except to reiterate what a jerk that music guy is.

Date: May 12, 2004

For clarification purposes, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate was approached via email from the Dome at 12:16 p.m. on the Monday following the settlement to confirm the 1:30 meeting with Dr. Thames and to inquire whether we had an agenda to present. In light of the fact that all conversations with the President were discontinued by Dr. Thames previously pending the resolution of the Glamser/Stringer affair and that the Dome had made no attempt prior to this 12:16 email to resume such meetings, the Senate EC felt that to meet on that day, having had no time to prepare for such, would have not been judicious or planful on our part. At the time that Dr. Thames ceased the monthly meetings with the Senate EC, we also sought to meet with Provost Hudson to ensure some contact with the Administration, but to no avail. We look forward to the resumption of our conversations with the Administration as the Faculty Senate is the duly elected representative body of the faculty of USM.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Joe Olmi
"For clarification purposes, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate was approached via email from the Dome at 12:16 p.m. on the Monday following the settlement to confirm the 1:30 meeting with Dr. Thames and to inquire whether we had an agenda to present. In light of the fact that all conversations with the President were discontinued by Dr. Thames previously pending the resolution of the Glamser/Stringer affair and that the Dome had made no attempt prior to this 12:16 email to resume such meetings, the Senate EC felt that to meet on that day, having had no time to prepare for such, would have not been judicious or planful on our part. At the time that Dr. Thames ceased the monthly meetings with the Senate EC, we also sought to meet with Provost Hudson to ensure some contact with the Administration, but to no avail. We look forward to the resumption of our conversations with the Administration as the Faculty Senate is the duly elected representative body of the faculty of USM."

Joe,
Thanks for the clarification.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
"I think Trellis Green's report is well worth reading. I, too, was caught a bit off guard by the 'workshop' presented by Wanda Naylor. Having been a corporate leadership development consultant in years past, this was nothing new to me, but maybe it was to someone in the room. What no one has reported yet is that at the end of her presentation Wanda asked us to split into groups by student, faculty, or staff and each group to select a "team leader" through whom communications would come. When we regathered, I objected to being 'ghetto-ized' in this fashion and expressed my contention that we were all there for the same goals and on the team as one. Several members supported this and the team leader stuff went away very quickly. I'm still keeping an open mind...though it gets increasingly difficult. I had the chance to speak with several faculty (both observers and PUCers) after the meeting...maybe the more fruitful part of the morning. HA reporter called me this afternoon. If he misquotes me, I'll beat him. Like Trellis, I still believe we may have an opportunity here for constructive dialogue. At least one member from faculty (I'm not mentioning names) apparently thinks we no longer have any issues to discuss, which makes me wonder why he agreed to serve. Others seemed to think we could wait a month for the next meeting. I'm afraid I was a bit forceful on that one and pressed meeting again prior to Dr. Thames meeting with IHL next Wed./Thurs. Interestingly, a number of people came without their calendars...perhaps not expecting to ever meet again? The next meeting will be either Monday or Tuesday in Union H. As soon as I have compiled all the responses from members as to the preferable day, I will let everyone know the meeting day and time. The meetings are open. Someone expressed the desire that these meetings remain 'transparent' to the community. Absolutely agree on that point. Bobby Middlebrooks said he thought we ought to be working towards putting ourselves "out of business," which I take to mean resolving it quickly and there being no need to go further...or getting Dr. Thames back into communication with the elected bodies...either of which is a good outcome as far as I am concerned. Hope this post was helpful. I can't say enought to thank those of you who have been supportive the last 24 hours. We'll hang in there a while longer. DJ"

I am mortified and embarrassed at these two reports of people "giving it a chance." For heaven's sakes, this isn't a donkey kong seminar, where we all draw our favorite animals. On top of that, I would have objected to being shown a management-biased "training film," and to being treated like a misbehaving child. To simply WATCH the film is to buy into the Thames version of reality in which he's done wonderful things for the University and we just haven't understood those things correctly. This is BS. This is EXACTLY the reason there should be no HAND-PICKED Thames-leaning committee. I ask all my fellow readers to reject this loosey-goosey mindless prattle for what it is, and to punch these two guys out (figuratively speaking) if an opportunity presents itself. I'm nauseated by these reports. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

Date: May 12, 2004

To my other Senate EC members, forgive me for appearing to speak for you without consultation. That is not my intention.

Joe Olmi,

Faculty Senate Secretary (soon to be past-secretary)

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Joe Olmi
"To my other Senate EC members, forgive me for appearing to speak for you without consultation. That is not my intention. Joe Olmi, Faculty Senate Secretary (soon to be past-secretary)"

Joe -- I think the exec committee will understand your intentions on this to keep the reocrd straight in terms of the current state of communications between SFT and the senate. Many on this board on in the USM and community and are not only interested but can help get the word out.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Joe Olmi
"To my other Senate EC members, forgive me for appearing to speak for you without consultation. That is not my intention.
Joe Olmi,
Faculty Senate Secretary (soon to be past-secretary)"

And, Joe, a fine job you did. Thank you.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: PoleLemic
"I am mortified and embarrassed at these two reports of people "giving it a chance." For heaven's sakes, this isn't a donkey kong seminar, where we all draw our favorite animals. On top of that, I would have objected to being shown a management-biased "training film," and to being treated like a misbehaving child. To simply WATCH the film is to buy into the Thames version of reality in which he's done wonderful things for the University and we just haven't understood those things correctly. This is BS. This is EXACTLY the reason there should be no HAND-PICKED Thames-leaning committee. I ask all my fellow readers to reject this loosey-goosey mindless prattle for what it is, and to punch these two guys out (figuratively speaking) if an opportunity presents itself. I'm nauseated by these reports. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh."

Pole,

For the love of pete, stick a sock in it.

While I know that most, if not all, of the posting members here want Thames to be history, communication is a part of all of that. If you can't say something constructive, please be quiet. I'm from out of state and do not know either of these gentlemen who found themselves on this committee. Personally, I found their 'reports' informative. Let them have at least a small chance to get the message across. Remember, it is easier to catch flies with honey than it is vinegar. One never knows what will happen until it does.

And yes, you are allowed here to have your own opinion, but do so carefully, lest you get labelled a troll or worse.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Joe Olmi
"To my other Senate EC members, forgive me for appearing to speak for you without consultation. That is not my intention. Joe Olmi, Faculty Senate Secretary (soon to be past-secretary)"

Joe -- I think the exec committee will understand your intentions on this to keep the reocrd straight in terms of the current state of communications between SFT and the senate. Many on this board on in the USM and community and are not only interested but can help get the word out.

PoLemic and Jonathan Barron:

I was at the meeting today and it was atrocious. I also saw the frustration in my fellow faculty members and the grad students on the committee (sorry staff, don't know any of you well enough to be able to judge your reactions).

I think I can say this since I refused the opportunity to serve on this committee: while I think it is fair to question the existence of the council, the motivations the administration has in creating it; the way it is being run (etc. . . .) I think it is not kosher at this stage to go after those who have chosen to serve. I know several of the members of this committee and they are not wide-eyed innocents at all. I have the feeling that Shelby will find that a number of folks on this counsel will not be led and I suspect the whole thing will blow up in his face.

Strategically at this moment we have our cake and can eat it too: there are a number of faculty bodies that have ongoing investigations underway; and/or have resolutions or statements before the President. They are well crafted documents and fairly clearly set forth faculty issues.

On the other hand we have on this committee some very tough minded individuals who can take advantage of this forum to ask hard questions, to and to request specific actions that will test the administration's desire to make things work. There is more than one way to get the regime to begin to cannibalize itself -- this little counsel might very well expose the administration in a way no other body has been able to do by simply doing what it has been asked to do -- to communicate. By inviting direct communication, the President has put himself in a position to hear directly from our colleagues and I don't think you should sell them short.

Our colleagues will be fair -- but they will raise the issues we want to be raised. It may be the only way the President will hear them . . . and he has chosen this method himself.

I hear your concerns: I'd rather this council had never been formed and I wish every department had refused to participate. But . . . . it did not work out that way and if we are going to be a successful insurgent movement we need to find new advantages in situations that are not of always of our choosing. We need to be adaptable and modifiy our strategies as we go. If you have ever boxed or done martial arts, you know what I mean here . . . .

No Quarter.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: in the know
"Who are we kidding here? The damage is done, and despite what Shelby does with the Meyers-Briggs and drawing rectangles, no substantial number of faculty even CARE what happened in that ridiculous meeting. It's not even worth reporting on, except to reiterate what a jerk that music guy is. "

LOL! Yes, oh how I remember "leadership development." Meyers Briggs, building stuff with lego blocks, and OH! the ropes course. Could the ropes course be far in the future? PUC members, get yourself some Absorbene Jr. if he tries to make you do the ropes/challenge course.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" I know several of the members of this committee and they are not wide-eyed innocents at all. I have the feeling that Shelby will find that a number of folks on this counsel will not be led and I suspect the whole thing will blow up in his face. . . . [W]e have on this committee some very tough minded individuals who can take advantage of this forum to ask hard questions, to and to request specific actions that will test the administration's desire to make things work. There is more than one way to get the regime to begin to cannibalize itself -- this little counsel might very well expose the administration in a way no other body has been able to do by simply doing what it has been asked to do -- to communicate. By inviting direct communication, the President has put himself in a position to hear directly from our colleagues and I don't think you should sell them short. Our colleagues will be fair -- but they will raise the issues we want to be raised. It may be the only way the President will hear them . . . and he has chosen this method himself. . . . We need to be adaptable and modifiy our strategies as we go. If you have ever boxed or done martial arts, you know what I mean here . . . . No Quarter. "

Good point. I have observed that SFT is very inarticulate when not "on script." He does not seem to think well on his feet -- either resorting to obscene bullying, or a dumbfounded "pass the buck" response (as when Doug Chambers called him down, on camera, in the Dome). If the PUC can keep him "on task" in the presence of the media, something good may happen.

Date: May 12, 2004

Pole could review our long interaction with David Johnson last night (gotta give up that midnight posting!) in which he outlined his background and we did our best to encourage and support him. Don't shoot him down now.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"Pole could review our long interaction with David Johnson last night (gotta give up that midnight posting!) in which he outlined his background and we did our best to encourage and support him. Don't shoot him down now."

While I put little (if any) faith in the PUC to heal the USM crisis, I think if more people like David Johnson were on the PUC, it might be a possibility.

I still remain committed to the belief that the only way to heal USM is to excise it's demons.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" Joe -- I think the exec committee will understand your intentions on this to keep the reocrd straight in terms of the current state of communications between SFT and the senate. Many on this board on in the USM and community and are not only interested but can help get the word out. PoLemic and Jonathan Barron: I was at the meeting today and it was atrocious. I also saw the frustration in my fellow faculty members and the grad students on the committee (sorry staff, don't know any of you well enough to be able to judge your reactions). I think I can say this since I refused the opportunity to serve on this committee: while I think it is fair to question the existence of the council, the motivations the administration has in creating it; the way it is being run (etc. . . .) I think it is not kosher at this stage to go after those who have chosen to serve. I know several of the members of this committee and they are not wide-eyed innocents at all. I have the feeling that Shelby will find that a number of folks on this counsel will not be led and I suspect the whole thing will blow up in his face. Strategically at this moment we have our cake and can eat it too: there are a number of faculty bodies that have ongoing investigations underway; and/or have resolutions or statements before the President. They are well crafted documents and fairly clearly set forth faculty issues. On the other hand we have on this committee some very tough minded individuals who can take advantage of this forum to ask hard questions, to and to request specific actions that will test the administration's desire to make things work. There is more than one way to get the regime to begin to cannibalize itself -- this little counsel might very well expose the administration in a way no other body has been able to do by simply doing what it has been asked to do -- to communicate. By inviting direct communication, the President has put himself in a position to hear directly from our colleagues and I don't think you should sell them short. Our colleagues will be fair -- but they will raise the issues we want to be raised. It may be the only way the President will hear them . . . and he has chosen this method himself. I hear your concerns: I'd rather this council had never been formed and I wish every department had refused to participate. But . . . . it did not work out that way and if we are going to be a successful insurgent movement we need to find new advantages in situations that are not of always of our choosing. We need to be adaptable and modifiy our strategies as we go. If you have ever boxed or done martial arts, you know what I mean here . . . . No Quarter. "

It is nice to see there are a few reasonable voices still to be heard.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" Good point. I have observed that SFT is very inarticulate when not "on script." He does not seem to think well on his feet -- either resorting to obscene bullying, or a dumbfounded "pass the buck" response (as when Doug Chambers called him down, on camera, in the Dome). If the PUC can keep him "on task" in the presence of the media, something good may happen."

Yep -- we can hope.

One thing that was raised today and seconded by many is that the committee members need to report back to their colleges and make sure everyone knows what is going on. The process needs to be transparent. I think that will help keep the council honest and give our folks the support they need to face the President with the questions that need to be asked. I also hope the council will test the administration by suggesting a series of actions that can be met right away.

Incidently, David Johnson -- great job today. It is amazinghow difficult it must be to be the first one to raise a real difficult question about the process and you did it a couple of times. It was interesting to watch how the dynamics started to change at that point.

Keep it up.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" Yep -- we can hope. One thing that was raised today and seconded by many is that the committee members need to report back to their colleges and make sure everyone knows what is going on. The process needs to be transparent. I think that will help keep the council honest and give our folks the support they need to face the President with the questions that need to be asked. I also hope the council will test the administration by suggesting a series of actions that can be met right away. Incidently, David Johnson -- great job today. It is amazinghow difficult it must be to be the first one to raise a real difficult question about the process and you did it a couple of times. It was interesting to watch how the dynamics started to change at that point. Keep it up. "

Kudos to David Johnson for taking his position to heart, for researching the crisis and developing some important questions, and for having the fortitude and integrity to raise questions and to see his position as a real vehicle for change. David, keep up the good work!

Date: May 12, 2004

My apologies if the rhetoric was too strong in my previous post. I'm new at this and perhaps haven't got the sound right. Still, it's fair to say I was horrified by two msgs that seemed to be from apologists for the PUC and the process it represents, and doubly horrified by what appeared to be an unquestioning attitude on the part of those reporters.

When you are presented with a film that "focused on reactions to organizational change" and you fail to mention that this shows that the basic terms of the discussion have already been set by the meeting's maker (Thames), then I think you aren't thinking clearly.

To go on to say, as Trellis Green does, that the "problem as I see it is not the "change" from restructuring," but that "we have low 'morale' from a certain style of management," is to misunderstand in a fundamental way what is going on here.

What is going on is, in its short version, this: an administrative attack on the basic idea of a university, an attempt to replace the time-honored idea of a university with a much coarser, business-model-based idea of "harvesting" knowledge for financial advantage.

I've always objected to the idea of Thames as a good scientist; he may be a good product development engineer, but in my experience "good scientists" do science for the sake of the science, not for the sake of the applications that might emerge. Good scientists also, of course, welcome the cultural and financial benefits, but these are rarely primary drivers. Even medical research focussed on disease elimination, for example, is, for the most part, primarily the pursuit of knowledge.

To say, as Green does, that "the training "video" harped on five steps in the process of change in organizations," without stopping to imagine what are the possible reasons for showing such a film to a body such as this, strikes me as extraordinary--the participants were there to be "instructed" by Thames that the trouble at USM is resistance to change on the part of the rank and file faculty and staff and students, which has been Thames' assertion from day one.

Why wasn't there a filmstrip saying the idea of a university is an idea of a faculty and students working together toward the pursuit of knowledge?

Or maybe one about the appropriate role for administrators and presidents?

The problem at USM now is that Thames has already succeeded in turning the school upside down, making it a playground for a (large) handful of highly-paid but not particularly thoughtful or imaginative administrators, who are going willy-nilly through the process of mangling a school that once had the opportunity to be a decent third or fourth tier university.

I think that the people who are participating in Thames' PUC are doing a disservice to the rest of us. They are patsies for Thames' PR machine (and whatever else you say about Darth Mader, she clearly and consistently outwits our side), which could not be more clearly demonstrated than on the 10 pm news on WDA, which I just stopped to watch.

We had to accept the Glamser-Stringer settlement because those two professors had much at stake, and deserved to take what they could get; we have no such allegience or debt of deference to the people who take part in the PUC, no matter how well-meaning they might be.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: PoleLemic
"My apologies if the rhetoric was too strong in my previous post. I'm new at this and perhaps haven't got the sound right. Still, it's fair to say I was horrified by two msgs that seemed to be from apologists for the PUC and the process it represents, and doubly horrified by what appeared to be an unquestioning attitude on the part of those reporters. "

I talked to Trellis and David both right after the meeting. I think Trellis' report wasn't as focused on an analytic of who controlled the agenda of the meeting because it was so obvious it was hardly worth discussing. Plus he was pretty ****ed at the way the meeting happened. Don't know if you know but he is on FacSen and has been in on all those 40-0 and 39-1 votes so he's pretty well up on the score vis a vis the admin.

I'll return to fill this out a bit more -- got a phone call I need to take.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" I have the feeling that Shelby will find that a number of folks on this counsel will not be led and I suspect the whole thing will blow up in his face. "

Something blow up in Shelby's face? Why, what would possibly lead you to suspect that such a thing could happen? What possible precedent is there for such an eventuality? Everything the man has done up to this point has operated with smooth, flawless precision. He is my hero; he is the wind beneath my wings.

Date: May 12, 2004

Joe..............

Date: May 12, 2004

RE: Any word from the PUC meeting yet?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: PoleLemic
"My apologies if the rhetoric was too strong in my previous post. I'm new at this and perhaps haven't got the sound right. Still, it's fair to say I was horrified by two msgs that seemed to be from apologists for the PUC and the process it represents, and doubly horrified by what appeared to be an unquestioning attitude on the part of those reporters. When you are presented with a film that "focused on reactions to organizational change" and you fail to mention that this shows that the basic terms of the discussion have already been set by the meeting's maker (Thames), then I think you aren't thinking clearly. To go on to say, as Trellis Green does, that the "problem as I see it is not the "change" from restructuring," but that "we have low 'morale' from a certain style of management," is to misunderstand in a fundamental way what is going on here. What is going on is, in its short version, this: an administrative attack on the basic idea of a university, an attempt to replace the time-honored idea of a university with a much coarser, business-model-based idea of "harvesting" knowledge for financial advantage. I've always objected to the idea of Thames as a good scientist; he may be a good product development engineer, but in my experience "good scientists" do science for the sake of the science, not for the sake of the applications that might emerge. Good scientists also, of course, welcome the cultural and financial benefits, but these are rarely primary drivers. Even medical research focussed on disease elimination, for example, is, for the most part, primarily the pursuit of knowledge. To say, as Green does, that "the training "video" harped on five steps in the process of change in organizations," without stopping to imagine what are the possible reasons for showing such a film to a body such as this, strikes me as extraordinary--the participants were there to be "instructed" by Thames that the trouble at USM is resistance to change on the part of the rank and file faculty and staff and students, which has been Thames' assertion from day one. Why wasn't there a filmstrip saying the idea of a university is an idea of a faculty and students working together toward the pursuit of knowledge? Or maybe one about the appropriate role for administrators and presidents? The problem at USM now is that Thames has already succeeded in turning the school upside down, making it a playground for a (large) handful of highly-paid but not particularly thoughtful or imaginative administrators, who are going willy-nilly through the process of mangling a school that once had the opportunity to be a decent third or fourth tier university. I think that the people who are participating in Thames' PUC are doing a disservice to the rest of us. They are patsies for Thames' PR machine (and whatever else you say about Darth Mader, she clearly and consistently outwits our side), which could not be more clearly demonstrated than on the 10 pm news on WDA, which I just stopped to watch. We had to accept the Glamser-Stringer settlement because those two professors had much at stake, and deserved to take what they could get; we have no such allegience or debt of deference to the people who take part in the PUC, no matter how well-meaning they might be. "

You apologize for your earlier harsh rhetoric then proceed to demonize people who are participating in a process. Before I answer you, let me thank the members of this discussion board who have been supportive...for about an hour there I was starting to feel a bit lonely.

First of all, what on earth would make you think that any sentient person on that council took one bit of that silly video seriously or even thought the exercise worth mention? If you'd attended the meeting, you'd have seen that not everyone in the room was a "Thames patsie." We spent an hour drawing rectangles and watching videos. It was a waste of time. The only real business conducted happened over about 15 minutes of discussion at the end of the meeting. Present Professor is right when he says it's monumentally difficult to question the process, and he's also right about how the tone of the meeting changed once the process began to be questioned. Why didn't any of us buck the deal during the first hour 'workshop'? Because it wasn't a battle worth fighting. This PUC thing is going to have a limited life is my guess. We have a little bit of dry powder, not much, and the support of some of the campus community which gives us just a tad bit more. I'm not wasting it arguing with Dr. Thames or Wanda Naylor about their choice of videotapes. Stop majoring on the minor.

I think most of you know that my position is that communication could best be accomplished with the elected bodies already in existence. But, that hasn't happened. So, here is an offer of a couple of advantages of a non-elected, non-deliberative, non-governing body like the PUC:

1) We aren't elected, so we speak only for ourselves in reality. Some of the readers of this board (not most) have extended their distrust of the administration to anyone who walks within 50 feet of them. That's not realistic.

2) We aren't deliberative. So far, we have no rules of procedure. We are there to communicate...only. Therefore, it is difficult for anyone to limit the debate (though I've heard from one member who would sure like to).

3) We have no binding authority. We aren't a "threat" to the system...or are we? We act in an advisory capacity to the President. What does that mean in terms of advantage? It means that, as Robert Carpenter aptly pointed out last night, any outcome is informative. As long as we ask the hard questions, whatever answer we get is informative.

4) Because we aren't elected but are 'appointed' by the Deans (part of the administration), we have a very moderate level of protection...and so do you. Why is that? Because the President asked for this group to be formed. It was his initiative acting on recommendation of the Deans. If we don't represent your position, you have plausible deniability (how Nixonian is that?) because you didn't elect us. If we happen to score any points with our limited 'powder,' you win big...again because you didn't elect us.

What are the odds that PUC can bring healing? I'm not going there. But it's for sure not going to happen if you keep trying to punch us in the nose when you see us. Who cares what video Ms. Naylor showed? Do you really think it changed anyone's mind?

Your charges against council members are petulant and misinformed. I doubt you attended the meeting. There's a lot of talk on here about "the idea of university" and "fundamental rights of academic inquiry" and "freedom of information." Well, there's another right, and that's the right to be faced by your accuser. You want to take a swipe at me? Come on. I'm a big boy and I can take it. But take off your mask, first, Zorro. Pretty easy to take a shot when you can hide behind "PoleLemic."

I've said it once, and I"ll say it again. The video and the rectangles were inconsequential. Did they delay the hard questions? Yeah. But we also got agreement to a meeting BEFORE the IHL board meeting next week...and that took some pushing. Stop majoring on the minor.

Date: May 12, 2004

David, it's Robert Campbell, not Carpenter.

Is this your first year at USM? Some of the posters on this board are really angry and beaten up and have been dealing with this stuff a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by: David Johnson

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
""

My apologies to Robert Campbell. Unfortunately, I can't read the posts and type the response at the same time.

To answer your question, yes it's my first year here at USM, but I"m pretty aware of what went on before I got here. I know a lot of people are feeling really beaten up. I get that, LVN. I don't blame them for feeling beaten up. They HAVE been beaten up. Most of them, though, recognize that beating each other up isn't the answer...one or two don't get that.

Date: May 12, 2004

David, keep up the good work. I think you did well, trying to make bricks with no straw.

Signing off for tonight.

Date: May 12, 2004

David Johnson, you sound like a very level-headed and reasonable person; I wish you all the best in what I know is a difficult assignment. If PUC has many people like you on it, it may not be a complete waste of time. Good luck!

Date: May 12, 2004

David,

I wish you my best - your posts are strong - I can tell that you are sifting through these insights. And, you know, it's probably helpful that you are in your first year here because you can bring a fresh outlook to the "council" and this Board. I look forward to what you have to say.

You have a general idea of the administrative distrust that's reflected here. The vast majority of it is for good reason. You have people on here who have been involved with USM (and all the baggage that goes with it) for as many as 30 plus years and for as few as, well, one year. I'm guessing there are people on here who might actually be involved in their own lawsuits with Shelboo and Cronies, strike that, make that Company. Many hide behind names because they simply have to at this point. Many live far away from the Hattiesburg campus, but they are still acutely interested in this university community. The best news is that 97 per cent of the people that post on here care deeply for USM and want to see a bright outcome. SFT's current ploys have worn thin, but those ploys are not associated with you. I'm glad you're on the Council and allowing those of us, who can't travel 1,000 miles to attend those meetings ourselves, a glimpse of what happens.

You are not one of The Usual Suspects, and I look forward to your input.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"David, I wish you my best - your posts are strong - I can tell that you are sifting through these insights. And, you know, it's probably helpful that you are in your first year here because you can bring a fresh outlook to the "council" and this Board. I look forward to what you have to say. You have a general idea of the administrative distrust that's reflected here. The vast majority of it is for good reason. You have people on here who have been involved with USM (and all the baggage that goes with it) for as many as 30 plus years and for as few as, well, one year. I'm guessing there are people on here who might actually be involved in their own lawsuits with Shelboo and Cronies, strike that, make that Company. Many hide behind names because they simply have to at this point. Many live far away from the Hattiesburg campus, but they are still acutely interested in this university community. The best news is that 97 per cent of the people that post on here care deeply for USM and want to see a bright outcome. SFT's current ploys have worn thin, but those ploys are not associated with you. I'm glad you're on the Council and allowing those of us, who can't travel 1,000 miles to attend those meetings ourselves, a glimpse of what happens. You are not one of The Usual Suspects, and I look forward to your input."

Emma, I do understand why many on here feel that they must use 'monikers' rather than real names. Sometimes I wish I'd started out that way, but once you are out of the closet, there's no point in trying to go back in, so here I am.

Yes, I know these people on this board love USM. It's all that gives me hope, really. I got a little tired of PoleLemic beating Trellis Green and me up on here, and I probably overreacted. I ask the forgiveness of the readers if I have offended by my own heightened rhetoric.

Good people acting in good faith can disagree without becoming disagreeable. I've made my share of mistakes. I'll make more. But, I won't sit idly by when I have some chance...even a very slim one...to add something positive.

I'm not as idealistic as you might think. I'm old and getting older by the day. How do we find hope in the midst of this mess?

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"David, keep up the good work. I think you did well, trying to make bricks with no straw. Signing off for tonight."

David:

just got back online to see your answer to Pole. So I now know I need not finish my earlier response.

Your analysis was quite acute. I'm very confident you will not let the council get fooled.

Pole, if it helps -- I think David is right on this. The "go with the flow" of the meeting in it's "sensitivity training" stage was pretty concious on the part of a number of the members. It was pretty obvious Wanda was serious and sincere. Why pull someone into the war who quite possibly was innocent? Secondly, at the first moment when the "program" had an opening members of the council began to push back. By the time the meeting left there was a very definite shift in the power dynamic. It was the council that was pushing for an early second meeting; it was the council that indicated it wanted to deal with issues of substsnce, it was the council who challenged the fragmented approach to the three groups.

I don't think you could find anyone more opposed to this idea than I am. But we waged a brief battle on that and lost. Now we pick up the pieces and fight in a new terrain with new tactics. We have an instrument created by the President himself to "advise" him. We have people on the council whom we believe will not hold back from sharing many of the critical issues they see -- many of which we share in common. I heard several times today (thank you David, among others) "I think there are other appropriate elected faculty bodies . . . " As long as that conciousness remains within the council then the President cannot keep avoiding the designated staff, faculty and student elected bodies without seriously undermining his own credibility with the council (I hope that is true David and others).

If I believed that everyone on this council was an apologist for the administration I would not be taking my present position. But I know that not to be true and I have confidence in several of the people who are there. This would not be MY way of working -- but I know there are some who can be extremely effective in this sort of activity. I think we need to give them a chance: my own belief is that when the administration realizes what it has to do to "heal" the university, it will walk away from the table . . .

I understand why those on the committee can't take this position. They need to exist in a comlicated mental state of believing the committee can actually work but only if they can be compltetely honest . . . . but they also have to anticipate that compete honesty is likely to lead to the failure of the council's mission, given what we know of this administration.

Sorry to talk on for so long.

Date: May 12, 2004

I'll conclude my response to this thread by saying I certainly have nothing against David Johnson, or Trellis, and I'm confident they want to help. Maybe they are helping, but, from where I sit, anything that helps Thames give the public appearance of healing, listening to his faculty without really doing so, without dealing with the appropriate representative bodies, is counterproductive and harmful to our cause, which I take to be being shut of Shelby Thames.

I elaborated on the films because they were described and treatly seriously in the Trellis report, which nowhere noted the liability attached thereto.

In your reply ou set up these 4 points:

1) We aren't elected, so we speak only for ourselves in reality. Some of the readers of this board (not most) have extended their distrust of the administration to anyone who walks within 50 feet of them. That's not realistic.

2) We aren't deliberative. So far, we have no rules of procedure. We are there to communicate...only. Therefore, it is difficult for anyone to limit the debate (though I've heard from one member who would sure like to).

3) We have no binding authority. We aren't a "threat" to the system...or are we? We act in an advisory capacity to the President. What does that mean in terms of advantage? It means that, as Robert Carpenter aptly pointed out last night, any outcome is informative. As long as we ask the hard questions, whatever answer we get is informative.

4) Because we aren't elected but are 'appointed' by the Deans (part of the administration), we have a very moderate level of protection...and so do you. Why is that? Because the President asked for this group to be formed. It was his initiative acting on recommendation of the Deans. If we don't represent your position, you have plausible deniability (how Nixonian is that?) because you didn't elect us. If we happen to score any points with our limited 'powder,' you win big...again because you didn't elect us.

I won't wrangle with you about how each might be interpreted as counterproductive, but I will suggest that individually and collectively they demonstrate:

(1) a willingness to attempt to deal with Shelby Thames on his terms as your president

(2) a failure to recognize or a willingness to ignore that you have already become a powerful tool of the Thames administration

I would be interested in hearing what you imagine is to be gained by any discussions in PUC, especially inasmuch as you recognize it is not elected, it is non-deliberative, you have no authority, and you are appointed (ie, part of the administration).

Seems to me PUC is a show committee designed by Thames using his deans to produce the public appearance that he's trying to communicate with his faculty, staff, and students. If the eventually committee blows up and produces some kind of stink, maybe that'll help us out.

At the present Roy Klumb and Shelby and others are going to be pointing at your group and saying "See! We're working hard with a good core group of concerned faculty and staff and students to remedy the problems that those evil twins brought about with their investigation of that fine lady."

And the press, and the media, and the public, and the IHL are all going to be listening.

Date: May 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: PoleLemic
"I'll conclude my response to this thread by saying I certainly have nothing against David Johnson, or Trellis, and I'm confident they want to help. Maybe they are helping, but, from where I sit, anything that helps Thames give the public appearance of healing, listening to his faculty without really doing so, without dealing with the appropriate representative bodies, is counterproductive and harmful to our cause, which I take to be being shut of Shelby Thames. I elaborated on the films because they were described and treatly seriously in the Trellis report, which nowhere noted the liability attached thereto. In your reply ou set up these 4 points: 1) We aren't elected, so we speak only for ourselves in reality. Some of the readers of this board (not most) have extended their distrust of the administration to anyone who walks within 50 feet of them. That's not realistic. 2) We aren't deliberative. So far, we have no rules of procedure. We are there to communicate...only. Therefore, it is difficult for anyone to limit the debate (though I've heard from one member who would sure like to). 3) We have no binding authority. We aren't a "threat" to the system...or are we? We act in an advisory capacity to the President. What does that mean in terms of advantage? It means that, as Robert Carpenter aptly pointed out last night, any outcome is informative. As long as we ask the hard questions, whatever answer we get is informative. 4) Because we aren't elected but are 'appointed' by the Deans (part of the administration), we have a very moderate level of protection...and so do you. Why is that? Because the President asked for this group to be formed. It was his initiative acting on recommendation of the Deans. If we don't represent your position, you have plausible deniability (how Nixonian is that?) because you didn't elect us. If we happen to score any points with our limited 'powder,' you win big...again because you didn't elect us. I won't wrangle with you about how each might be interpreted as counterproductive, but I will suggest that individually and collectively they demonstrate: (1) a willingness to attempt to deal with Shelby Thames on his terms as your president (2) a failure to recognize or a willingness to ignore that you have already become a powerful tool of the Thames administration I would be interested in hearing what you imagine is to be gained by any discussions in PUC, especially inasmuch as you recognize it is not elected, it is non-deliberative, you have no authority, and you are appointed (ie, part of the administration). Seems to me PUC is a show committee designed by Thames using his deans to produce the public appearance that he's trying to communicate with his faculty, staff, and students. If the eventually committee blows up and produces some kind of stink, maybe that'll help us out. At the present Roy Klumb and Shelby and others are going to be pointing at your group and saying "See! We're working hard with a good core group of concerned faculty and staff and students to remedy the problems that those evil twins brought about with their investigation of that fine lady." And the press, and the media, and the public, and the IHL are all going to be listening."

Okay, you might be right. You made some interesting points, and I"ll certainly be factoring them into my thinking. I do understand your position more clearly now.

Yes, it is a risk that we will be used as a PR play. But, we also have access to the press and PR can work a lot of ways. Ms. Mader is sharp at the game, though. I think you were the one made that point earlier and it is well taken.

As I said in my earlier post, I think this PUC thing is probably short-lived. It may not do a lot of good. I think the potential for harm is pretty limited, too, though. If I really sense that nothing good can come of it, I'll step down and quickly (though likely not quietly).

So, thanks for the clarifications. Here's a question I'm wrestling with, and maybe you can help. With or without the PUC, what are the odds that IHL is going to ask for resignation?

Date: May 12, 2004

David,

Have the members of the PUC considered the likelihood that SFT will use the formation of the PUC as Exhibit A that he is taking positive steps when he meets with the IHL in a few days? How are the members of the PUC likely respond if SFT uses the formation of the group as a PR ploy with the IHL, who, if rumors are accurate, had recently been thinking of replacing him? Perhaps the PUC was designed less to convince the public at large than the IHL in particular. Do the members of the PUC have any strategy to prevent themselves from being used in this way? My understanding is that SFT is due to meet with the IHL on May 20. Is the PUC scheduled even to meet again before then?

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
""

Re: IHL asking Thames to step down.

We have no way of knowing where the new members' sympathy lies.

I would say it doesn't look to good right now, since summer is here and protests and activism might subside.

I am hoping that Virginia Shanteau Newton can keep the pressure on, and also that she can find at least three advocates in the new members for her opposition to Thames.

That, I am afraid, is our only hope. Since Klumb is now chair/president, will he even be allowed to vote on the issue, if it ever comes to vote?

Date: May 13, 2004

check out what the Sun Herald says about yesterday's PUC.

Amy Young

Date: May 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
" check out what the Sun Herald says about yesterday's PUC. Amy Young"

Bleh is right. Couldn't the reporter find anyone but Tom F. to interview?

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/local/8653432.htm

Date: May 13, 2004

I hesitate to step into a minefield here, but I do want to say a few words about the PUC. I was there for the first 25 minutes or so--then I really did want to puke, and since I am not a member of the committee, I could get out of the room (unlike those members who surely did want to leave when they saw the handout indicating that 'role playing' would be a part of the deal). I do thank David Johnson in particular for his careful posts and his commitment to trying to make what appears to be the only mechanism for "talk" right now work as a genuine mechanism for talk--to make the PUC a venue to address real issues. I'm also in agreement with Present Prof, who notes that while many of us wish this group had never been formed, it IS the group we have right now. But I also think PoLEMic (along with Jonathan Barron) has some stuff right. And the farcical "conflict management" stuff is a part of that. This was a CONTROLLED environment. You all were told right away that there would be no "agenda" for the day (kudos to those of you who insisted that there should be, and tried to get one on the table--or, err, should I say "parking lot"). There WAS an agenda for yesterday's meeting, and it was established by SFT and his crew . . . to make the talk about talking, conflict management, and "healing" rather than to actually TALK.

Witness the the long "letter" from the student that Ms. Naylor read. For those who weren't there, it was a mock letter from a student to her parents detailing the terrible things that were happening to her at college (I got a skull fracture, I'm pregnant and engaged to a mechanic, but we can't marry yet because we have Hepatitis C or something, blah blah blah); then she says, none of those things are true, but I am getting D's and F's for final grades. I just wanted you to get this stuff in perspective. The point of this, of course, is that we need to get proper "perspective" on what ails us--the underlying text being that we (we, fac, students, staff) have lost perspective. Apparently the "video" conveyed a similar idea (I was thankfully spared this . . . )

In the midst of what we are suffering, this at once feels like farcical pap and is, for me, offensive. So too the role-playing, the "Team USM" talk, etc. I'm sorry that the members of the PUC, many of whom are clearly well-intended and who came to the meeting ready to talk, were subjected to this. It wasn't fair to them--and I don't deny that they, too, knew it was farcical and HATED every minute of it. But I think it's important to say that this is not just farcical--it's also dangerous. Because when you/we say "this is silly--we have real conflict here, and we need to deal with it," they can say--"that's what we're trying to do!" It's a dodge, pure and simple.

Maybe you can turn this into a vehicle for genuine conversation, but you'll encounter a lot of resistance from people who want to make it Shelby's meeting. And I think we should be ready for Shelby to use this at the next Board meeting (Klumb has already addressed it, even before yesterday's session)--along with the insistence that the group meet again, which he will say indicates how "helpful" it is in healing our wounds--to indicate the positive steps this administration is taking.

As to the issue of those members not being "elected," the problems with that have become eminently clear after learning what my CoAL faculty rep, Tom Fraschillo, said in the meeting. When he claims that we ought not to "rehash old issues," he isn't representing anyone that I know in the college . . . yet to whom is he accountable????? The whole thing is disturbing--we've not even got any official word on who our reps are (the ONLY information about this has come from Fire Shelby! an irony, given the fact that the administration would clearly represent this as an "illegitmate" source of information. It's the ONLY source!!!). This, as I did point out to the dean, simply points the finger at the PUC itself: how can anyone represent my concerns when there has been no announcement of who is supposed to be representing me? And no venue in which those reps can learn what I and other colleagues care about--what we want them to bring to the table? The fact that there has been no such communication highlights the possibility (for many of us, the reality) that this is all window-dressing.

I do not doubt for a minute that many of those on the committee are sincere; I have every faith that David J, and others like him, will go on trying to fight the good fight, and for that I am grateful. But this IS NOT our committee--and while I think we have to call their bluff and try to make it ours, we have to remember: these people are good at spin. This might blow up in Shelby's face. It might very well blow up in ours.

If Shelby wants to deal with these constituencies, together, then he should call a meeting with reps from the Fac Senate, the Staff Council, and the SGA on both this and the GC campus.

Enough from me, for now. Sorry to carry on.

EW

Date: May 13, 2004

The Sun-Herald says it all--or, rather, my CoAL rep said it for them. Bleck indeed. Beware, folks!

Date: May 13, 2004

Let's clear the air.

We have a faculty senate. We have a staff council. We have a student body government. Why do we need the puc?

Since we have it, yes, the exercise was necessary so as to see if someone that listens, really listens. It also shows who does not desire to listen.

I have used that "drawing tactic in my classes with students blindfolded. It may sound "stupid" to some, but those people who listen and comply, usually get the drift, and picture real soon.

More students do good on the drawing that I have them do if they ask few questions.

God gave us two ears, one mouth, and one brain so as to use our faculties properly.

Use the brain and run the mouth less.

Date: May 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ellen Weinauer
"I hesitate to step into a minefield here, but I do want to say a few words about the PUC. I was there for the first 25 minutes or so--then I really did want to puke, and since I am not a member of the committee, . . . Enough from me, for now. Sorry to carry on. EW"

Ellen. I agree with you. It would have been better had to PUC not been formed. It would have been better had all departments refused to participate. And yes, the admin which is good at spinning can spin this -- it has started already. And yes, it is clearly a delaying tactic to save Shelby's ass through the summer.

That said, it is here. No amount of saying that it should not be here will unmake it. Our task now to a) prevent the admin from spinning it and b) help our colleagues whom we know to be sharp people and unafraid to say what needs to be said (see my comments earlier).

There are people on this committee who are not going to roll over. Let's give them credit and help them out. I have no reason to believe that this cuncil won't have the exact same experience virtually every other faculty and staff group has had -- in the end the truth comes out and the admin reveals itself for the heavyhanded powergarchy it is. I think what we get here is the ability to unmask this in public. Give Shelby enough rope . . .

The bad thing about this is that it undoubtedly plays to the Board. We lost that battle when the Deans made the proposal, refused the council of chairs request and too many departments decided to play along.

So the field of battle (I hate war analogies but they are the only ones that seem applicable) has changed.

WE NEED TO BOMBARD FRASCHILLO NIGHT AND DAY. He needs to know we are watching and that we will NOT stand for his not representing our ppoint of view and asking the hard questions. I think one place we could start is to secure a meeting with him and let him know what we expect -- and it ain't to buy the admins line that it is about "communication." At worst, we can neutralize him so that our other tougher minded colleagues from other areas can ask the questions and demand the answers.

Date: May 13, 2004

"Maybe you can turn this into a vehicle for genuine conversation, but you'll encounter a lot of resistance from people who want to make it Shelby's meeting. And I think we should be ready for Shelby to use this at the next Board meeting (Klumb has already addressed it, even before yesterday's session)--along with the insistence that the group meet again, which he will say indicates how "helpful" it is in healing our wounds--to indicate the positive steps this administration is taking."

Does this paragraph not sum it up? I suspect it will play out exactly as Ellen says with the Board-how can this group be coopted for real improvement at the same time this danger lurks may be the question that needs better minds than mine to answer? Any insight?

Date: May 13, 2004

I have a question...did Shelboo participate? Did he draw the rectangle and sit in the circle of chairs designated for "faculty" and elected a spokesperson or whatever the activities were? If not, then I would agree with Ellen that this is what we all feared it would be...worse than silly, it's SFT setting the agenda. That man doesn't want to listen to a thing and this is so obviously window dressing of the highest order.

I still support David Johnson and Trellis Green, and think their pressure on Thames will be crucial. But the USM as I knew it seems to be gone, gone, gone. SFT, talk to Faculty Senate, Staff Council, et. al. Until you do that, you're not facing reality and no healing will be able to occur.

NO QUARTER.

Date: May 13, 2004

Thank you all for the various reports from inside and good commentary.

I've never been able to tell if the Thamesites really believe in all this "management" stuff or if it's something they do to derail real work or both. The reports of films and drawing exercises reminded me of those golden moments early in the Thames administration when deans were lectured on their clothing and administrative staff were issued phone-answering scripts. Whatever the administration's motivation, there is little excuse for treating adult colleagues like children.

I am somewhat comforted, though, by the expressions by Trellis and Dave, and the reports of others' responses, that there are strong people in there who will try to engage the issues. Clearly Fraschillo (the CoAL "representative," and I use that word ironically) is a disaster. But I feel better knowing that even though my college "rep" is useless, there are others who are in the game.

And I agree with present professor (as I almost always do!) that, since our various protests about the formation of the PUC fell on predictably deaf ears, we must now shift tactics. If the PUC, or even a significant number of its members, can come forward and genuinely represent majority faculty views on these substantive issues, then even the Prez's own council might join the united voices of the university community in calling for MASSIVE change.

PUC members, by all means work with what you've got. But within that venue, when you can speak out--NO QUARTER.

Anne Wallace

Date: May 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by Fire Shelby:
"Could the ropes course be far in the future? PUC members, get yourself some Absorbene Jr. if he tries to make you do the ropes/challenge course."

PUC members may find these instructions useful before participating in a "ropes course."

Date: May 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" PUC members may find these instructions useful before participating in a "ropes course.""

ah invictus . . . we canalways count on you for injecting some delight levity into these sometimes too serious conversations . . . .

"hang in there!"

( . . . together . . . or we shall all hang separately.)

Date: May 14, 2004

Hattiesburg American
EDITORIAL

So what is the purpose of the President's University Council?

We're struggling to understand the purpose of the President's University Council, the new 18-member group of staff, students and faculty created by University of Southern Mississippi President Shelby Thames.

The council held its first meeting Wednesday.

"This group does not take the place of the Faculty Senate," said USM President Shelby Thames before the meeting. "It does not take the place of the Staff Council. It does not take the place of the Student Government Association. It is not a governor's body. It is a mechanism for additional viewpoints. ... It's an opportunity for me to receive input from a different group of Southern Miss stakeholders."

By Thames' own admission, the President's University Council has no authority to effect change.

If the council's purpose is to improve communication on campus, aren't there already enough venues through which to pursue this objective?