I was on campus a little this morning.  Rumor has it that Trellis Green was not going to go to it.

Well, the PUC is not the PC, but in my heart it'll always be puke.

The meeting opened with the statement from Thames concerning his view of the puc. He said that he viewed it as an "ad hoc non-governance focus group with the purpose of assisting with and facilitating communication throughout the campus which includes faculty, staff, and students." He wants puc to assist because it's so hard to communicate with the thousands of employees.

Next, Middlebrooks was appointed or acclaimed "facilitator" which either means chair of the committee or the person through whom all questions to the president are addressed. This is quite problematic, in my view, since there are already designated individuals from elected groups to do this already. Again, this is just an end run around the Faculty Senate.

Next, the Faculty Handbook. Thames wants Bill Taylor to work with the deans to hammer out the 1-2 items still under consideration in order to implement the document by July 1 for the new hires.

As I understand it, the Faculty Handbook Committee which included Myron Henry had completed their deliberations and handed a document over to Thames for approval. Now, apparently, Thames wants another go at it - at least 11.3 which is now 10.2 or something. My interpretation is that Thames wants to revise the termination process section.

Next, some half-way decent news. The president is willing that any monitoring of emails, or copying of computer hard drives and telephone conversations must be approved either by someone in the MS AG's office or through some judge. This is actually a step in the right direction. BUT, these are things already asked by Faculty Senate and Academic Council!

This policy still needs some work. We need to push on this one, still.

Next, the Drug and Alcohol policy. We in the peanut gallery had to push in order to get Thames to realize that this needs to go through Faculty Senate again (as well as Staff council, and probably the graduate council since so many graduate students are employed and would be affected).

What wasn't discussed include:
1. full disclosure on the emails and computers already read - who and why
2. full disclosure on the raises - how and why
3. full disclosure on the assertion (not backed up with facts) that the restructuring saved so much money that was funneled back into academics.
4. full disclosure on this Research Foundation
5. full disclosure on the hiring policy of all these administrators without searches
6. full disclosure on hiring folks in through the research foundation budget and then channeling them into faculty lines.

the list goes on.
I saw PUC as another step backward, except on the email issue, which isn't done yet.

Press was present - WDAM. This is not a good situation.

This is not a good situation because Thames looked reasonable as he attempted to remove the last vestiges of shared governance.  Perhaps WDAM won't run the story, I don't know.  It was kinda low key.

To reiterate:  Bobby Middlebrooks and David Johnson simply cannot substitute for Faculty Senate, Staff Council, and the other groups whose members were elected.

It was only because one faculty (another sitting in the peanut gallery) spoke out against a partial adoption of the new faculty handbook (everything but the termination process section) yet, Thames said this is not a council that supplants Faculty Senate.

The whole idea of puc is just not working.  If that body had addressed replacing the appointed members with executive committee members of fac sen, academic council, grad council, SGA (lame as it is), and staff council, then maybe something good could happen.  As it is, this continues as the end run on elected representation.

I agree with peanut gallery.  The PUC (or is it PC now?) needs to disband officially.  I would urge my college representative to discontinue participation.  This was a bad idea from the beginning, and those that urged non-participation from the beginning were right.  I say thanks to David Johnson and Trellis Green and Peter Butko, but this experiment is over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Magnolia
"From what I understood on the WDAM report, Thames said that he would talk to legal counsel to see what could legally be done and then policies would be revised based on that information.  I think we should be careful not to confuse what he agreed to do and what may actually be done.  "

---

Uh-Oh. What "legal counsel"? I hope he's not talking about Mr. and Mrs. Dvorak.

If the full story behind the email concessions were known, you might be surprised how effective the PC has been.

I find this remark troubling.  This suggests that there is some inside knowledge and manipulation at work on the part of the puc appointees.  This is a time for transparency on the part of everyone, including puc.

While I appreciate the efforts of some of the appointees to try to get Thames to open up on the email policy, and to extend that to computers and telephones, there remains the serious problem of Thames ignoring Faculty Senate and other representatives.

I find this remark troubling.  This suggests that there is some inside knowledge and manipulation at work on the part of the puc appointees.  This is a time for transparency on the part of everyone, including puc.

There's no inside knowledge or manipulation, and I ask you to forgive my unfortunate phrasing. Dr. Thames was made aware of the proposed agenda of the PC last Thursday. One of the items was email surveillance. He added it to HIS list of issues, which were to be addressed prior to ours as the proposed agenda outlined, and he dealt with it before we brought it up. I think it is fair to say that his being given the agenda may have contributed to his coming out with his statement.

I agree on the need for transparency on the part of everyone. But, I find the call for transparency a little troubling from someone who identifies himself only as "peanut gallery." Perhaps you mean this is the time for transparency on the part of everyone who is willing to act publicly and sign their name to their thoughts, which includes a lot of people on this board and on the FS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: David Johnson
"  What he said he would check with counsel about is the ability to add a second layer of protection which would be a committee made up of a couple of faculty and the university counsel.

David: I don't mean to slam you at all; I'm sure you are doing the best you can in a very difficult situation.  I'm just very skeptical of these concessions.  In late February, this "committee"  would have been J. Hanbury and a couple of hand-picked faculty. 

 

However, when it became clear that this second layer had not been discussed with counsel, the PC asked, and Dr. Thames agreed, to make the changes that he had already committed to make in the policy and to seek the university counsel's opinion on the suggestion by the faculty senator.

This is not acceptable. He “consulted with counsel” before the unmitigated attack on Glamser and Stringer– including electronic surveillance and rifling through their hard drives. And *NOW* he’s concerned about what’s legal????

I’m with Elliott. Disband the PUC.. NO QUARTER. It is simply a face-saving gesture for him, and the best hoped-for result would be the magnanimous gesture of saying maybe- MAYBE- he won’t be breaking into my office or tapping my phone in the future??? That’s not even close.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"David, Was there, or is there likely to be, any progress toward the goal you mentioned this weekend -- i.e., quickly replacing current PUC members with elected representatives from faculty, student, and staff organizations?  I was a little disappointed to see no reference to this idea in reports from today's meeting.  I think the best thing the PUC can do for itself and for USM is to put itself out of business as soon as possible by replacing itself with the elected representatives.  Can you please give us a progress report on achieving this goal?  I am hoping it will be accomplished very quickly; indeed, I was hoping that it would have been set in irreversible motion today."

---

I was hoping for the same thing. I can tell you that there are several of us who agree that the best thing the PC can do for itself and the University is to put itself out of business as soon as possible.

I broached the idea that there was no single forum in which all of the elected bodies could interact with each other and with the administration. A staff member on the PC objected immediately that there is such a forum, but wasn't able to say what it was. A faculty PC member said that FacSen has a liaison to Academic Council. I maintained that this still did not constitute such a forum as I had described. Clearly I was moving towards making the proposal that I mentioned on the boards last night. However, the sentiment didn't seem to be such that it was a good idea to bring that forward at this meeting. I planted a seed, I think. Perhaps at the next meeting it can be brought forward more completely.

The answer is no concrete progress towards that at this meeting. I remain cautiously optimistic that things might move this direction, however.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Thanks very much, David; I appreciate everything you are doing (and trying to do).  Don't the other members of the PUC realize that as long as they stay in business, they risk being viewed as pawns of SFT and attacked as such?  I'm surprised that anyone even wants to be on the PUC and run that risk; even if the members were to act in pure self-interest, I would think they would want to put themselves out of business ASAP.  I hope you will make this a formal proposal at the next meeting so that people will have to go on record in support of (or in opposition to) the proposal.  If there is already a council such as the one you seem to be proposing, fine -- then let there be two.  Just don't let there be any "representative" body on campus that is not in fact elected.  Two further questions: when is the next PUC meeting, and how did the representative from Liberal Arts (I forget his name; he is the band leader) conduct himself this week?  David may not wish to answer the second question, so perhaps others can answer that one. I have to confess that one reason I would like to see the PUC supplanted by an elected body rather than abolished altogether is that the former option would be an even greater embarrassment to SFT.  Once again one of his plans would have backfired on him.  If the PUC is merely killed, he can always charge the faculty (irrationally, I know) with having no interest in "dialogue."  On the other hand, if the PUC is turned into an elected body representing all the important constituencies on campus, he has another unruly group to deal with. Thanks again, David."

---

The next meeting date hasn't been set yet, but will likely be late next week. Dr. Middlebrooks is to coordinate this using the listserv to poll members and with Dr. Thames' office as to his schedule. He will also seek additional input from council members with regards to additions to the agenda (additional to items we didn't get to this week).

I believe the faculty rep from CoAL that you refer to is Dr. Tom Fraschillo. He was unable to attend today due to scheduling conflicts, which he reported last week. We selected Monday since that was the day more of the members who responded could attend. I believe that, in addition to Dr. Thames, there were 11 or 12 of the 18 members present today, Dr. Joan Exline who indicated she was the liaison with the Deans, a handful of observers from the faculty and the press represented by WDAM and The Student Printz.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"David, Was there, or is there likely to be, any progress toward the goal you mentioned this weekend -- i . . .  I am hoping it will be accomplished very quickly; indeed, I was hoping that it would have been set in irreversible motion today."

---

First, it is fair to acknowlege that the President showed up by himself without the help of obvious handlers. The second thing is that he did not try too hard to control the agenda. This needs to be said in his behalf.

It is a complicated policitial situation, The PUC will not disband itself because there are too many people on it who either believe it to have a legitimate prupose or believe, as people of good conscience, that those of good will can make it work.

So the issue is to use the PUC to get as much as we can while trying to expose an falseness that might be motivating the administration. The more the committee demands proof of good faith through concrete actions and then watches those actions to see that they are carried through, the better. This is not about trust . . . this is about proof positive.

Trust, if there is ever to be any, can come later after a reason for trust has been established. And I mean MUCH later.

Thank Peter Butko for being the first to speak from the peanut gallery. It broke the ice. The audience's role here is an odd one. After all the committee has it members -- the audience members are there as witnesses. In most committees participation from non members is a courtesy so I think it was hard to speak in as concise and frank a way as one might have spoken if a member of the committee. None the less the peanut gallery made some good contributions, and it needs to be said that the President did not try to control that conversation.

It is important to note that the President conceded that the Drug and Alcohol policy would work this way:

1. The Deans would solicit input from faculty. Supervisors will solicit from staff.

2. Suggestions will get kicked up through Deans to President.

3. Outside policies will be researched (I see no reason Fac Sen can't share its findings here.

4. The policy will be formulated and then circulated for feedback. Feedback will be directed to faculty Senate, Staff Council; and perhaps SGA (SGA is my own surmise based on parallelism.)

5. Those bodies will make an assessement and forward suggestions.

6. At that point it is unclear what will signify ratification of the document but I would propose a joint committee to have a final go at the document before it goes into effect.

I have no reason to believe that developing an email policy would not work the same way.

The email monitoring would be referred to the AG's office or s a state or country judge. There was a suggestion that an on campus committee be formed of fac, staff and students and the university lawyer to act as a local gateway. I think we can estalbish that these constituencies ought to have some representatives in on any process that intitiates a monitoring. My own feeling is that it is possible for an adminstrator to create a "reason" for monitoring which might not be altogether clear to a judge or an ag rep but which people on the scene mighthave a better chance to see through. The President didn't fuly agree with this idea, but he did not reject it entirely.

Shelby indicted there had been no email monitoring and was none going on other than G&G except for one reqyested by the Air Force and the other by the FBI.

No one asked about entries into offices and abstracting material off of hard drives.

There was dicussion of the need to protect material on seized computers but this discussion did not go very far -- I think people were tired. The discussion was cordial but tense -- it isn't easy to sit in front of someone and essentially say "we need to talk about these things because we don't trust you."  

The Handbook is sticky but I think mostly because the Presdient wasn't completely familiar with it in detail and no one seemed to know if the on-line edition was the present one or the past one.

My memory is that what is being called 11.3 (this was a flag for me) is now a different number. That made me concerned to make sure we are talking about the version that Myron, Bill Taylor and the committee hammered out with Hanbury. That version was substantially passed -- the last remaining obsticle was the tenure/promotion policy. Myron managed to work out with the committee the "ombudsman" concept which was a vast improvement on Hanbury's version although perhaos a bit less than the Ol' Miss process.

I have heard that the Deans might be opting for suggesting to Shelby that he simply go with the something resmembling the Ol' miss Process (this would be easy as Myron placed one version of this before the committee I think.)

The President will return to meeting with the Senayte regularly on June 9. He also indicated that his letter to the Senate was not intended to be an order . . . . but a request for help.

 

It is a mixed bag. If we can use this forum to get concrete change then we should do it. The committee needs to continue on its objective to turn these conversations and any contemplated action that comes out of them back to the elected bodies. If the President gets good information from this group, then turns that information ito policy which then gets referred to Senate, Staff and SGA Councils for genuine "advice" and input, then I think this is fine.

Will he use this work to show that he is trying to make things work and is adopting a new open policy. Of course. He'd be silly not to. But we can hold him to his promises (and he made several today) and constantly remind him that policy should not be put into effect until the representative bodies have a go at the policies somewhere in the formulative stages. Doesn't have to be the beginning -- councils and senates are not good bodies to create macro-policy. But they are ideal for reacting in a critical way to policy as it is being formulated.

I have a huge problem with the fact that I cannot forget that two faculty members who I respect and care deeply about are in exile right now. That stands between the President and any trust or loyalty I can give him, even were things to reverse themselves overnight.

But there are huge policy issues that need resolution and he seems to be willing to work to get some of them resolved -- perhaps even in ways that will work to our benefit. So the question becomes do we refuse to work with him in the hope that inaction will force his firing . . . or do we try to get what we can while watching him closely and remembering that we still have resolutions on the table, FOIA requests still outstanding and inquiries ongoing?

It is a dilemma. It is one we need to discuss as a community because it is happening even as we speak.

(sorry for any typos, it has been a long day).  

 

Thanks, David!  It's too bad the next meeting won't occur until after the next IHL meeting; I fear that SFT will use what you all have (and have not) done so far as part of his PR campaign with the IHL.  He will now be able to say: look, I have this PUC thing up and running, and look what we have accomplished so far -- I may actually agree to stop snooping on faculty email! 

I sure do hope you all put yourselves out of business ASAP to prevent SFT from reaping further such PR rewards.

Romeo is correct.  After the way the first meeting went, if all the members had come out to the media and reiterated Peter Butko's comments, in their own words of course, the victory Thames wanted with this thing would have evaporated into a defeat.  Instead, the fiasco of what was the first episode is being salvaged by the willing 18 members, who ultimately are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by giving Thames a pile of committee meeting minutes that were never acted upon but were good for Janet Braswell to claim Shelby is ever the benevolent king, isn't he?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"   Romeo, As I understand it, David's idea was that ALL the current PUC members would leave the PUC and be replaced by elected representatives.  David, please correct me if I am wrong."

---

If that could be orchestrated it would be great. But see my opening comment earlier: I don't think even a majority will quit yet.

I believe David and Bobby M. had talked of transitioning rather than a literal turnover from appointees to reps from elected bodies. Am I right David?

Otherside's quote is very relevant here: I tried to bring this up today but could not remember what the makeup of the orginal University Council was. I think it has not met for quite a while . . .

I just want to add my 2 cents to this issue because I think a very important point is being missed. Thames has managed, with this one invention (PUC) to dramatically divide the faculty. Our strength is in the 430-32 vote of no confidence.  In the overwhelming agreement between us.  With the PUC we are divided and Thames has (as someone said above) a perfect tool to represent his good will to the IHL and to the community. Participation in this committee is, I'm afraid, the equivalent of collaboration.  Whereas we formerly were as one, we are no longer. If there were a vote of no confidence on Thames today would the numbers come out as before? If there were a vote on the PUC would the numbers come out as before?  I think not in the latter, and probably not in the former. Now, how many think Thames is genuinely invested in the PUC and wants to implement changes suggested by the faculty? How many thing this tiger has changed his stripes?  I say this is impossible to believe or take seriously. Thames is wrecking our unanimity, our sole source of power, with this single small committee. It’s very unfortunate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
"  we take what he offers and we use his vulnerability to get the concessions we need to make it more difficult for the administration to monitor our email, to fire professors, to go back to working with the Senate and other elected bodies, and eventually to hire people on state money without national searches.   "

---

 Correction:

. . .  to get the concessions we need to make it more difficult for the administration to monitor our email, to fire professors, to get him to go back to working with the Senate and other elected bodies, and eventually to hire people on state money using national searches. These are the things were can do now using his need to prove he is trying to make things work. It's a little like giving ground in order to get your opponant off balance and then grabbing him and helping him fall in the direction he was already falling to . . .

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen Judd
" David does not have the power of command over the council. And the idea was not to have people elected from the general body but to move to already elected representatives.  "

---

I realize that David is just one voice; I was hoping he would make the proposal so that others would have to vote for or against.

I also realize your second point.  I don't think I ever indicated that I believed he was calling for elections of an entirely new group of people.

 

Does the University attorney have a dotted line relationship to the AG office?  Under this proposed policy could the University attorney initiate looking at email without going any further up the chain of command?

Cindy,

Getting the PUC to turn itself over to elected members of other campus bodies might be even more of a loss for SFT than if the PUC were abolished outright.  If it is abolished outright, he scores a PR coup ("I TRIED to engage in dialogue, but those radical faculty members wouldn't cooperate"); if it turns itself over to all the other bodies on campus, his new baby entirely escapes his control.  Also, the PUC, by committing suicide in this way, offers a powerful demonstration of its commitment to democratic values, even though it was established in an undemocratic fashion! 

So, PUC members: do your duty: go out in a memorable blaze, kind of like kamikaze pilots! 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Cindy, Getting the PUC to turn itself over to elected members of other campus bodies might be even more of a loss for SFT than if the PUC were abolished outright. "

---

 

OK, so the idea would be that between now and the next PUC meeting, EACH FACULTY MEMBER ON THE PUC should withdraw (plead illness, or work overload, in order to maintain control of the position on the PUC) and chose a member of the Faculty Senate from his/her college to stand in his/her place when the PUC next convenes?

Better yet, the Faculty Senate could ELECT whatever number of faculty reps there are on the PUC (5?) and those ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FACULTY SENATE would go and sit in the seats of the appointed members of PUC (who would, if asked, plead illness or pressing work load, and say that they have asked the elected FacSen reps to sit in for them).

Will the PUC people do this?

Some of you...not all of you...but some of you need to figure out who your friends are.

My previous posts concerning my thoughts on how this Council could be structured are all here for you to read. I don't think they are ambiguous at all. They are MY thoughts, not the Council's. I"m not a toady for Dr. Thames. I'm not your patsy either. Look at my statements, which are public and transparent and have my name on them. Look at what I've said publicly on the PC.

Those of you who think the PC can save Dr. Thames' job for him with the IHL have a pretty limited understanding of the political ramifications of that board. I"ll bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in yours that they won't ask him to resign, and the PC won't be a major factor in that decision.

Somebody slipped an anonymous package under the door. Some of you assumed that the anonymous person was your friend. I have my suspicions on the source of that package, and I think some of you have the same suspicions. It was a bold and manipulative move...Machiavellian, really. A lot of folks jumped at the bait.

There's an old story about a bird freezing. I won't repeat the tale here, but many of you have heard it. As I recall the moral of the story it was: Everyone who s**ts on you is not your enemy. Everyone who gets you out of s**t is not your friend. And, if you are warm and happy in a pile of s**t, keep your mouth shut.

Who is your enemy? Who is your friend? Don't answer too quickly. I may only be a lowly grad student, but I've played the political game of business with some of the best. Won a few, lost a few, a few were rained out. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: David "DJ" Johnson
"Some of you...not all of you...but some of you need to figure out who your friends are. My previous posts concerning my thoughts on how this Council could be structured are all here for you to read. I don't think they are ambiguous at all. They are MY thoughts, not the Council's. I"m not a toady for Dr. Thames. I'm not your patsy either. Look at my statements, which are public and transparent and have my name on them. Look at what I've said publicly on the PC. Those of you who think the PC can save Dr. Thames' job for him with the IHL have a pretty limited understanding of the political ramifications of that board. I"ll bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in yours that they won't ask him to resign, and the PC won't be a major factor in that decision. Somebody slipped an anonymous package under the door. Some of you assumed that the anonymous person was your friend. I have my suspicions on the source of that package, and I think some of you have the same suspicions. It was a bold and manipulative move...Machiavellian, really. A lot of folks jumped at the bait. There's an old story about a bird freezing. I won't repeat the tale here, but many of you have heard it. As I recall the moral of the story it was: Everyone who s**ts on you is not your enemy. Everyone who gets you out of s**t is not your friend. And, if you are warm and happy in a pile of s**t, keep your mouth shut. Who is your enemy? Who is your friend? Don't answer too quickly. I may only be a lowly grad student, but I've played the political game of business with some of the best. Won a few, lost a few, a few were rained out. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

---

I am not sure I follow this, I am hoping it is a tired rant.  Goodness knows we all need to do that sometimes because of extraordinary frustration.

I question DJ's reference to the anonymous packet.  I assume that DJ knows who did this?  Many of us have our theories, but the question of who is completely immaterial.

The packet concerning A. Dvorak's credentials was not just an assertion, but included what appeared to be hard data.  The investigation bore that out.  Why question its origination?  The investigation by AAUP was conducted because we thought that there was a need to see just who it was that was weighing in on tenure and promotion decisions, as well as the nature of the research of this university. 

As to knowing who one's friends are, I believe that most faculty believe that professionalism is not about friendship.  I have good and productive colleagues who most would describe as crotchety and not at all friendly.

If DJ is actually thinking most of us don't know who to trust, I think that is a bit naive.

I believe that puc WILL indeed be used to justify Thames' position as president by the IHL board.  They want Thames to quiet things down here.  Things have not been quiet for a long time, on campus and in the press.  I believe that what can topple any university president is when the local press turns on that individual and HA appears to have done this.  If puc gets positive coverage because of one possible concession (email and other electronic surveillance), it has done so at the expense of shared governance, academic freedom, free speech, and an open administration.

I would like to suggest that the executive committees of all relevant bodies in the university become members of puc until elections can be held.  These would include Staff Council, Faculty Senate, Council of Chairs, Graduate Council, Academic Council, Student Government Association, Graduate Student Association, and possibly some others that I am forgetting.  Oh, yeah, how about AAUP?  If puc refuses, perhaps those elected bodies can designate individuals to sit in the peanut gallery.

I would also like to suggest that all deans attend, as well as the provosts. 

Prediction: Shelby inviting DJ over to the dome for some private meetings (as the PUC rep) won't be long over the horizon.  If not, expect a PUC rep on his cabinet soon --- yep, you guessed it ---- it's DJ.

The PUC is by its  very structure, by its very definition fundamentally anathema to shared governance. No matter how many "good guys" are on it the very structure of the PUC is designed to enhance the ends and goals of the administration. The very structure of the PUC by design is already working.

Look at the facts.

On this very board the opposition to Thames is now in opposition to itself and all as a result of the PUC.

On monday's PUC meeting the PUC took up issues whose ONLY PROPER PROVINENCE is the faculty senate, staff council, and other elected bodies: the email policy, the drug and alcohol policy, among other issues.

No public university in this state OR ANY OTHER has a PUC for a reason. It is fundamentally anti-democratic by its very structure and its administrative goal to split the faculty and decide policy according to the administration's terms IS ALREADY HAPPENING.

We have elected representation already: so does every other public university in the state and the country. Please, I beg everyone to realize to work through the existing democratic structures we have.

For example, why doesnt the faculty senate have a meeting with OUR lawyer, Lee Gore, and ask how the president can get away with ignoring the current handbook policies on governance, on the proper consultation of provosts and the like? He's our lawyer too you know why not use him?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Gossip Monger
" Allow me to offer a cautionary word. I'd counsel you all to be very wary of operating under such assumptions. Tim Hudson is presently flying under the radar, but assuming he's been marginalized would be a grievous error. He's most effective, and most dangerous when working behind the scenes, and you may be assured that he isn't idle now."

---

You bet he is not idle!  Scrambling and on the ropes, desperation is not a pretty sight.  My prediction is that his last ditch attempt will be today or tomorrow with an announcement from a big and very visible donor who has decided to back him.  Question is will it be enough? 

Always stipulating that I am an "outsider" and that I therefore defer to the opinions of others more closely involved, here are my 2 cents:

I regret the negative comments about David, who seems to be a very well-motivated person.  At the same time, I can understand why people are frustrated with what has happened (or not happened) with the PUC and the potential of the PUC for further manipulation by SFT.  Therefore I hope David really WILL propose at the next meeting that the PUC be abolished or (better yet) turned over entirely to people already elected.  I think it is to David's great credit that he is the one who initially proposed the latter idea.  If he were a power-hungry person, I don't think he would have suggested putting himself and the PUC (as currently constituted) out of business.  The time to make that proposal a formal, on-the-table proposal, however, seems to be at the very next meeting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
.  Therefore I hope David who initially proposed the latter idea.  If he were a power-hungry person, I don't think he would have suggested putting himself and the PUC (as currently constituted) out of business.  The time to make that proposal a formal, on-the-table proposal, however, seems to be at the very next meeting."

---

Yes, BEFORE the IHL meeting.  Otherwise, the impact of that action will be lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: David "DJ" Johnson
"Actually, I tried to make the proposal at the last meeting but was cut off by another member of the Council before I could get past the first sentence."

---

David,

Thanks for your effort; at the next meeting, bring a large bow and arrow set and use it to intimidate anyone who tries prevent you from speaking.  Even an axe would be okay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" David, I think this is a sad statement on the reality of what the PUC truly is (i.e. NOT an elected body with no real protocol in place).  I want to commend you on your earnestness and willingness to do your best within this contrived framework, but I have to agree with Jonathan Barron on this one.  Call in sick, plead "no free time," or something, but get yourself off of this PUC now before you are dragged down with the rest of them.  You seem much too intelligent for that group, and you DO NOT want to take the flak for SFT. The PUC is hobbled by design...it is nothing but window dressing for SFT and his complete end-run around the elected, representative bodies that he DOES NOT want to deal with.  David, I think you would make a GREAT SGA president...why don't you run next year?  They could use someone with your experience. NO QUARTER!  "

---

Truth,

I'm flattered, but I don't think that my election as SGA president would be likely. Fortunately, with any luck at all, I'll obtain the MSW in May 2005, so it is a moot point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: The Koplat Agency
"Just a word of support for David Johnson. If he manages to formally propose his idea for the replacement of existing PUC members with elected representatives from duly elected bodies (a genuinely clever idea), then he will strike a strong blow for us all. As it is, PUC is already being used to secure Shelby's spot at the top of the heap (and it is a heap)."

---

Is it possible for someone from the Peanut Gallery to make the proposal?  After all, as Truth pointed out, it sounds as if there is no formal protocol.  I would love to see the reaction of SFT if someone made this proposal.  I nominate Noel Polk for Head Peanut; he seems to have absolutely no fear!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Is it possible for someone from the Peanut Gallery to make the proposal?  After all, as Truth pointed out, it sounds as if there is no formal protocol.  I would love to see the reaction of SFT if someone made this proposal.  I nominate Noel Polk for Head Peanut; he seems to have absolutely no fear!"

---

As Stephen Judd previously noted, comments from the observers were welcomed by both the Council and the President. However, I think this proposal carries slightly more weight if it comes from the Council...though I agree that if it is to come from the observers, Dr. Polk (or Dr. Chambers) would be capable of speaking to it.

Here's a different angle, maybe. The Deans proposed the PC to begin with. At least one or two have indicated they'd support election of representatives, though not specifically this proposal. Any chance we could get their ear and maybe their support for this idea?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: friend
"My question is "why don't we know 'the full story' " if this is the forum to promote full communication?  Surely you can't be suggesting that SFT does things behind closed doors and then disseminates a different version of reality as he sees fit. "

---

I made no such suggestion, and I've already apologized for the poor choice of words. My sentiment was that SFT's being aware of the desire of the council to address this on the agenda prior to the meeting MAY have prompted the action in some way. Maybe it was something else entirely. Whatever brought it about (and who knows 'the full story'?), it was a significant move in the direction of the faculty. Is it because he needs to show better communication to IHL? Probably. But, as several have pointed out on here previously, if that's the case, why not capitalize on it and get whatever positive movement we can?

I know I am just blowing into the air here by now but, really, if one has a congress, if one has a legislature, why in heaven's name would one want to make another one.

We already have elected representative bodies on this campus. If the PUC is suddenly going to become elected then it is also going to be redundant and a further absurdity as a result.

The president is using the PUC on the news, he will use tomorrow and the next day at the IHL, and he is especially going to use it on the four new members. It is part and parcel of his pr machine ALREADY. And it is already working.

So, anyway, please... If we are going to start trying to make the PUC into an elected body than we are simply walking into a hall of mirrors alice in wonderland pseudo reality. We have elected representation. Remember? There's no need on this earth to have it all over again. Why not actually force the man to do what his own handbook and standard best practices at all other 7 state instutitions already enforce? Why doesnt the PUC simply say: clearly we are now engaged in making policy. THerefore, we are redundant. Please communicate with Staff Council and Faculty Senate, the only appropriate venues for these issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Emma
" When he is listening to no one who disagrees with his self serving, egotistic actions/statements, why is he suddenly going to listen to a group that he can disband as quickly as he banded? Again, this is NOT a slam at you.  Many of us have a rather long history with him, and he's a venomous nuisance."

---

Good. Let him disband his own appointed committee. Yet another example of failed communication, should it happen -- and each time it does it is harder and harder to pin it on anyone other than himself. His public support has eroded badly -- he doesn't need any more bad press. The PR game works both ways . . .

I think it is fair for any of us to question the PUC or any aspect of this process. What is not fair is attacking the motivations of colleagues until they prove there is a good reason to doubt their motivations. Those of you who have attacked David's character by implying he is out to satisfy his own ego. or that he desires access to power, should rearrange your arguments to speak to the issues and not the person. I remind you that this is exactly the tactic that has been used time time again against us: that we are all a small group of rabblerousers out to preserve our own jobs, gain power, or to cover up our own mediocrity which Shelby is trying to expose.

It is destructive of our unity and it is a fundamental break with democratic process when the arguments that should focus on issues devolve to attack individuals.

I wish we had complete unity on everything we do but we do not -- that is the glory and the heartbreak of a democracy. We are strengthened when we reason with each other because we can hone our arguments in internal debate. I remmember this well from watching the Senate for over a year as it moved slowly to its present position. But now, having achieved that position through debate, argument, and patient testing of ideas, the Senate as a body is firm in its course (with the caveat that we are about to inaugurate new senate members and some of them will have their own opinions which will undoubtedly enter the mix.)

I miss my two colleagues who are lost to us because of the administration's actions. That is one reason I could not join the PUC. But not everyone shares those feelings. It is up to us who are on the outside, whether by choice or because we were not asked to serve, to determine how we are going to work or not work in relationship to this group. My personal choice is to try to work closely with those I know to be rational and who will ask the questions and try to get answers. If in doing so we can gain create some constraints on the administration, then that is good. If the committee can keep reminding the President that policy should not be implemented without going back through the elected representative bodies and that its function is purely to provide him some feedback from a diverse body, then that is good as well. it is being used and that nothing useful is coming about and therefore it disbands itself, then so be it.

I would ask that the committee as a whole thoroughly familiarize itself with the positions taken by the faculty senate in particular as many of the issues which came up yesterday have been debated and concrete ideas proposed. Some of these actually appeared yesterday from the President's own mouth . . .

And I would finally ask that the committee members continually remind the President that  anything they say is only 18 individiual opinions and does not represent the faculty, staff, or students in whol eor in part. In order to get that sense, the Presdient needs to seek the advice of the elected bodies of each of these constituencies.

Do not let him forget.

 

remember, SFT, not the "Deans", formed this Council. I'm with Dr. Barron, we tolerate what's been presented only so far as to continue with the pursuit of what is legally and ethically just.  I don't want to be squandered into the lesser areas of the mission of the university - the PUC presents no problems until we closely examine the reasons that it was formed.

I repeat,

NO QUARTER