My question is that I cannot remember ETSU ever being in a "good economic environment". Probably never will be and that is why this president has got to be a big picture leader who can really, really be a fund raiser. I think it can be done with the right person.
I'll just throw this out there for the sake of argument:
I would think that a "professional" administrator could actually be more vital to the state of the University at this juncture than a 'faculty' popularity contest. I understand the "need" for faculty to have an academic in the post because it's their idea of "dues paying" that is inbred in the faculty. Teaching, research, and service are all part of the Tenure package BUT does the CEO (and let's face it, this is a CEO position) need to have come from the faculty ranks??
Long gone are the days when 'the old ball coach' is picked to run your multimillion dollar Athletics program. Can you imagine selecting a coach that only supervised a volunteer assistant and a $40,000 budget to run your $10million athletics department?? I can't.
So for the sake of moving a University forward in the economic climate we have with the level of student apathy that we deal with, why wouldn't a "POLICY" man/woman make sense? I'd rather my place of work and alma mater be in the hands of someone who knows how to navigate the political climate and understands that these 9-digit budgets have to be managed. A LEADER isn't someone who shoves it off on other people, he/she would roll their sleeves and get to work.
I really am intrigued by all three candidates. I really don't think there'd be a "mistake" with any of them from a University Leadership standpoint. I'm going to try and go to the interviews next week if my schedule permits (glad to hear they may be streamed) and then I'll just go with my gut on who "my choice" would be. But I really don't think it's fair for "faculty" to discredit any one candidate just because they haven't been engrossed in hardcore academia.
(10-21-2011 11:35 AM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote: [ -> ]I would think that a "professional" administrator could actually be more vital to the state of the University at this juncture than a 'faculty' popularity contest.
On this we agree
Probably as would I. However, is it really an "either/or" situation?
I would argue not. There are people out there who can embody both concepts/history/talent.
I'm wondering, now, if this search firm that was hired to search really was proactive in trying to recruit good candidates - wondering if they 'beat the bushes' to see who was interested? (Maybe they did; I don't know - just throwing that question out there.)
My point being, if I may follow up, that this particular juncture is probably more important than when stanton or Nicks were hired. (Although the Nicks hire was critical short-term.) There is so much to do, academically and athletically, that the VERY BEST candidates should have been sought out. Just stating what we already know about the athletics part of it, it's probably now or never (or maybe it's too late already) to see if we can try and follow the paths of Marshall, MTSU, Appy, etc., or continue to be relegated to the low-major role we've slid down to.
One more factor, which was alluded to previously on another thread, is the salary of the President. You can bet that that kept some from applying who otherwise might have considered it. Which is sort of in opposition to my tenant above that the VERY BEST candidates should have been sought out. The VERY BEST candidates probably were not interested.....
I would be very shocked if etsu ever rises to become Marshall or ASU. Etsu had the opportunity but squandered it.
[/quote]
Noland made it because he is very good at what he does. you do not get to where he is, as quickly as he has, and get to the finals at two universities like UT and ETSU if you dont have something to you. you just dont. the majority of faculty can get behind this guy. the eggheads cannot get pastthat he has never taught....i didnt know the new president was going to teach classes....
[/quote]
I've seen very successful presidents who have never been faculty members. However, part of the search criteria is "a distinguished record of teaching..." I believe Dr. Noland has some (maybe even extensive) experience as an adjunct. I suppose "distinguished" is subjective. Nevertheless, while communication skills are paramount, I'm not sure being a good teacher is a necessary prerequisite for running a university.
Slappy and GobucsGo are playing out the test of wits scene from Princess Bride...trying to confuse us and lead us to wanting the person who mullins wants in the position. I believe mullins and zaatini are going to to politically manipulate their cause if they have not already started. After next semester if they are replaced we will have football back. If they stay we should give up on our hopes of ETSU ever having a well rounded athletic department.
(10-21-2011 12:48 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote: [ -> ]One more factor, which was alluded to previously on another thread, is the salary of the President. You can bet that that kept some from applying who otherwise might have considered it. Which is sort of in opposition to my tenant above that the VERY BEST candidates should have been sought out. The VERY BEST candidates probably were not interested.....
I was made aware that Dr. Stanton's salary isn't just the $225,000 listed on the salary database (I did think this was quite low for the length of his tenure and the size and mission of ETSU). It seems that he also is compensated with a percentage of the returns on the medical practices network (is that MEAC??). Given the scope of these practices and networks, I'd image it's a nice amount of money.
Are you aware of this? (and I apologize for not knowing if the "name" is MEAC, I was driving and talking so I didn't take notes). And, if this is factual, will this supplement be included in the package for the new President?
Any football supporters going to the open forums of the candidates?
(10-23-2011 10:10 AM)bucfan99 Wrote: [ -> ]Slappy and GobucsGo are playing out the test of wits scene from Princess Bride...trying to confuse us and lead us to wanting the person who mullins wants in the position. I believe mullins and zaatini are going to to politically manipulate their cause if they have not already started. After next semester if they are replaced we will have football back. If they stay we should give up on our hopes of ETSU ever having a well rounded athletic department.
Wha...huh??? Put down the copy of the Warren Commission Report...Oswald did it. Not that confusing many of the posters on this board would be that difficult...but to sway your opinion is the least of my intentions. You are also giving WAY too much influence/power attributed to MUllins and Zaatini. Come on out of the basement and get some fresh air...it'll do you some good.
The decision will be made by the Chancellor, pure and simple. There is some input from the committee, but he will decide. May have already. That is why my stance has been all along that Noland was the odds on favorite (well before he even applied). I want Noland because i think his upside is worth the risk. It is a pretty safe job for whomever gets it. But i feel his youth and connections can be an asset. I would like to see ETSU take a chance. Frank would be safe, and probably do a fine job. I'm just not satisfied with that. This is just my opinion and not meant to change anybody's views.
(10-23-2011 02:51 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote: [ -> ]Any football supporters going to the open forums of the candidates?
I can't make it to Frank's, but I'm going to try to go to Noland's and Patterson-Randles'. The student forums are at noon, which isn't really all that convenient for me since all my classes are in the middle of the day...
Yeah, I don't even know Mullins yet all these people think I work for the guy. Influence? I don't think I influence anyone's opinion on here; maybe sometimes. But it's fun to drop the gauntlet and watch the madness. Slappy's right that the decision is made by the chancellor, but the Board of Regents have a lot of input. In fact, I think they get to vote.
The field was quite deep. There were probably 15-20 candidates that had strong credentials. And by the way, TYPICALLY in Presidential searches you get a lot of people who are provosts or higher level administrators, etc, at larger institutions (eg Kent State, UMass-Amherst, Texas Tech to name a few) who are vying for the position. You don't get a lot of Presidential candidates looking for a lateral move. I don't think salary will really be an issue. First, ETSU has a lot in cash reserves. Second, the President is provided with a house & a car, so there's some definite perks. They won't give the person $400K or something, but I expect them to get substantially more than Stanton was paid this year.
Noland's not qualified, but yes I guess he has connections based on his previous job. That could be good & could be bad, especially if he's made some enemies somewhere along the line. I think he's a pretty risky hire because he simply may not be ready to do it based on his lack of experience, but that's strictly my opinion. If he gets the job I'll wait & see how he does. Frank & Patterson-Randles have the experience and the credentials, and have advocated for universities to get gain more resources. Frank has a stronger scholarly background than her. Noland has none. We are an academic institution.
Saying 85% of the faculty voted against Noland is not disingenious, Slappy. How big is the search committee? 20. Forty is twice as many people as who's on the search committee. If we had 400 faculty in that meeting, I can guarantee the negative vote would have been about the same.
I'm really just for the best candidate we can get. All 3 of these have some positives, I'll admit that. We'll see.
(10-23-2011 10:10 AM)bucfan99 Wrote: [ -> ]Slappy and GobucsGo are playing out the test of wits scene from Princess Bride...trying to confuse us and lead us to wanting the person who mullins wants in the position. I believe mullins and zaatini are going to to politically manipulate their cause if they have not already started. After next semester if they are replaced we will have football back. If they stay we should give up on our hopes of ETSU ever having a well rounded athletic department.
You could well be right about mullins (and I hope he does go), but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Zaatini. He doesn't want to leave, and he's of no mind to threaten any new AD. He's all about tennis, and making both the tennis teams as good as they can be. He's not like mullins, university politics-wise. My guess is what you've said is pure speculation, and ill-founded concerning Zaatini, at that....
(10-23-2011 10:34 AM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2011 12:48 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote: [ -> ]One more factor, which was alluded to previously on another thread, is the salary of the President. You can bet that that kept some from applying who otherwise might have considered it. Which is sort of in opposition to my tenant above that the VERY BEST candidates should have been sought out. The VERY BEST candidates probably were not interested.....
I was made aware that Dr. Stanton's salary isn't just the $225,000 listed on the salary database (I did think this was quite low for the length of his tenure and the size and mission of ETSU). It seems that he also is compensated with a percentage of the returns on the medical practices network (is that MEAC??). Given the scope of these practices and networks, I'd image it's a nice amount of money.
Are you aware of this? (and I apologize for not knowing if the "name" is MEAC, I was driving and talking so I didn't take notes). And, if this is factual, will this supplement be included in the package for the new President?
I'm pretty sure those earnings are only because of his medical practice/standing - not because he's prez. Not to mention, because of the very sad states of cardiology and internal medicine, that money is way less than it should be and way less than it probably used to be. I have seen those numbers, but not in many years, so can't speak reliably on their scope.
So no, as I understand it, none of that money should be *directly* channeled to the new prez.
At one time I had also seen a comparative salary picture of the ETSU President compared to some other regional universities, and UT, and others. I can't remember them well, but of course we did not stack up well at all. I'm sure a lot of that info can be gleaned from google, but I'm not going to take the time to do it.
(10-23-2011 06:44 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote: [ -> ]The field was quite deep. There were probably 15-20 candidates that had strong credentials. And by the way, TYPICALLY in Presidential searches you get a lot of people who are provosts or higher level administrators, etc, at larger institutions (eg Kent State, UMass-Amherst, Texas Tech to name a few) who are vying for the position. You don't get a lot of Presidential candidates looking for a lateral move.
*** I've said this before, but I'll reiterate. I've been around and seen who's applied in the past 4 or so presidential changeovers. There were higher-achieved applicants than most of these, a
long with many like these. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this...
(10-23-2011 11:54 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote: [ -> ] (10-23-2011 10:34 AM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2011 12:48 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote: [ -> ]One more factor, which was alluded to previously on another thread, is the salary of the President. You can bet that that kept some from applying who otherwise might have considered it. Which is sort of in opposition to my tenant above that the VERY BEST candidates should have been sought out. The VERY BEST candidates probably were not interested.....
I was made aware that Dr. Stanton's salary isn't just the $225,000 listed on the salary database (I did think this was quite low for the length of his tenure and the size and mission of ETSU). It seems that he also is compensated with a percentage of the returns on the medical practices network (is that MEAC??). Given the scope of these practices and networks, I'd image it's a nice amount of money.
Are you aware of this? (and I apologize for not knowing if the "name" is MEAC, I was driving and talking so I didn't take notes). And, if this is factual, will this supplement be included in the package for the new President?
I'm pretty sure those earnings are only because of his medical practice/standing - not because he's prez. Not to mention, because of the very sad states of cardiology and internal medicine, that money is way less than it should be and way less than it probably used to be. I have seen those numbers, but not in many years, so can't speak reliably on their scope.
So no, as I understand it, none of that money should be *directly* channeled to the new prez.
At one time I had also seen a comparative salary picture of the ETSU President compared to some other regional universities, and UT, and others. I can't remember them well, but of course we did not stack up well at all. I'm sure a lot of that info can be gleaned from google, but I'm not going to take the time to do it.
The link for the salary database was listed last week, maybe on this thread. I glanced at it but didn't go to the bother of making up the list for sake of time at that point. ETSU's was on the mid-range, but I was just glancing and not really registering.
You could well be right about mullins (and I hope he does go), but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Zaatini. He doesn't want to leave, and he's of no mind to threaten any new AD. He's all about tennis, and making both the tennis teams as good as they can be. He's not like mullins, university politics-wise. My guess is what you've said is pure speculation, and ill-founded concerning Zaatini, at that....
Doc - it is a fact...not speculation. I will tell you if you want...but not here.
I'm hearing that there is sort of a schism in the committee, which if one has been keeping up and paying attention should not be a surprise. It's even possible Paterson-Randles could emerge as sort of a compromise selection, although that is only a possibility - not a probability. Wide diversion of opinion, with committee members scared of certain aspects of the two 'major' candidates for differing reasons. Again, to those in the know, not shocking information....
Unfortunately, there is more I cannot reveal for "security" reasons. I wish I could find a way to safely couch what I would like to say, but have failed to find such. Some of it will come out; some likely will not.
Still anybody's game, as they say.....
Seems as every one of these answers is pretty "canned":
Frank