Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Best and Worst SIUC administrators for 2006?

I realized that if you are going to write a blog like this one that you need to have some milestones to guide you along your way. After seeing the big two page ads in the Southern and DE about SIU for excitement through excellence (or whatever it is called) that we need some independent awards too. It isn't the end of the year, but let's throw out my front runners for best and worst performing administrators.

My front runner for best administrator is Ricky McCurry. He has two things going for him, first he seems to be doing a good job selling and raising money for SIU and there aren't really many administrators that I can see doing a good job. The entire SIU endowment is $100M at the end of FY2005 vs. $74M at the end of FY2003. I think Ricky has a hard job and seems to be headed in the right direction.

A clear winner as worst administrator isn't Walter Wendler, my pick thus far is Sue Davis. Sue really stands out at the person who wrote the speech for Wendler that had the plagiarized passages, for implementing the horrible SIUC website and silly rules associated with it, and in her worst performing area owns marketing and PR for SIUC. Can you imagine that she owns marketing the university, but has not done any of the work required to do an average job after 5, 6, 7 years of being in charge? I can't figure out where the webpage for the Media & Communication Resources-SIUC group is located, but Sue has a lot of people working for her and the wide responsibility that allow her freedom to implement programs. On results, Sue Davis is my front runner for worst administrator.

I'm leaning toward John Haller for the biggest lie by an administrator for 2006. $40k for Poshard's Inauguration? Ha! Again, I have no problem with the party, just the lie.

Who else might be up for best or worst? What other categories should there be?

6 comments:

JB said...

I don't know what John Haller said but with such events I think of money laundering: State launders lottery money by drawing down the equivalent amount from General Revenue so it is a "wash" transaction (to launder is to wash). Here is the second definition from my dictionary:

"2. To disguise the source or nature of (illegal funds, for example) by channeling through an intermediate agent. 3. To make more acceptable or presentable, sanitize: "The transcripts are, of course, laundered ... unidentified larger chunks of conversation are reported missing throughout" (Eliot Fremont-Smith).

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the Dean of CMCMA who has run off much of the talented faculty who had real world knowledge.

Anonymous said...

As a former insider in Sue Davis' department I can verify that she is the worst administrator. She is a lier, a plagerist, and a bully.

She has many great people working for her, but she has them hog tied and brow beaten. It verges on the bizarre.

I am commenting here to let you know that you have hit the nail on the head on this one, but other than a couple of her minions, someone really needs to step in and "free" the people she supervises and let them do their jobs. They have the talent and desire.

Anonymous said...

I agree that someone needs to step in and free the people she supervises. How she keeps getting good, honest, talented employees is beyond me, but she does. And then she drives them to the very brink of sanity. They are hog-tied, unable to use their knowledge, training, talents and common sense and are treated with a suspicious and condescending attitude reminiscent of a haughty mother towards a mischevious toddler.

Anonymous said...

I agree that someone needs to step in and "free" the people Sue Davis supervises. How she manages to hire honest, talented, good people with her reputation is beyond me, but she does. Retaining them is the problem, because after hiring them, she then drives them to the brink of insanity, treating them with suspicion and refusing to let them use their talent, knowledge and experience. Her management style is remniscent of a condescending, haughty mother towards a mischevious toddler.

Anonymous said...

The number of people she has working for her, according to the site, is incorrect. Many of those people have left the university or the department specifically because of her failings.