D. HAROLD DOTY, FORMER DEAN, COLLEGE OF
BUSINESS, CURRENT DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT
TYLER
(October 10, 2006) Minimal Sufficiency or Adequate Evidence? "Consider the second installment reviewing Dean
Doty’s memorandum in response to our grievance. He wrote, “In summary, you have failed to present objective
evidence that provisions of the Faculty Handbook were violated." (Decide for yourself whether Dean Doty’s claim
is accurate. See our grievance pp. 2-4. Evidence for claims in the grievance includes documents written by Drs.
Carter and Doty.)" For additional documents referenced in this opinion piece: Carter memo, Doty email to Provost
Grimes.
(October 11, 2006) A Case Study in Failure: Duane Harold Doty "In an attempt to determine just how bad Duane
Harold Doty is as a manager, we cite some facts that are without dispute. Doty has a Ph.D. in management. Doty
has taught management courses at no less than two institutions of higher learning. Doty claims to be a human
resources strategy expert. Why is it, then, that Doty is so poor as a dean, a position that is clearly a managerial
position? ...".
(October 10, 2006) Is the BBER Feathering Gunther’s Nest? "... So, is Gunther taking his $150,000 (approx)
salary+fringes from the CoB, funded through the generosity of Mississippi taxpayers, and providing professional
services to the citizens of another state? It appears so. Gunther’s presentation to the Baldwin County (AL)
Economic Development Alliance presumably was designed to benefit businesses in the Baldwin County area of
Alabama. What was the benefit to South Mississippi? We would assume nothing, unless South Mississippi
businesses are able to secure a video tape of the presentation and can get some of the “expertise” that they are
partially paying for through Gunther’s $120,000 salary. ..".
(October 11, 2006) Deconstructing Dean Doty "Consider the second installment reviewing Dean
Doty’smemorandum in response to our grievance. He wrote, “Insummary, you have failed to present objective
evidencethat provisions of the Faculty Handbook were violated." (Decide for yourself whether Dean Doty’s claim
is accurate...".
(October 11, 2006) Deconstructing Dean Doty "The following is the third installment reviewing Dean Doty’s
memorandum in response to our grievance. Dean Doty’s second paragraph states that 'You [Lindley and DePree]
specify three provisions of the Faculty Handbook. Two of the provisions you specify, 12.2.2 and 12.2.3, are
grievance procedures for which you assert no violation.'...".
(October 11, 2006) Deconstructing Dean Doty "The following is the fourth installment reviewing Dean Doty’s
memorandum in response to our grievance. Why does Dean Doty expound on 8.2.9 in paragraph 3? It is the only
issue stated in our grievance he feels he can remotely argue. The other five grievances he can only say “you assert
no violation” without the least bit of evidence or reasoning. So, why expound on 8.2.9?...".