Any PUCers Reports ?

Date: May 26, 2004

Any PUCers Reports ?

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"Are there any PUCers out there with a report on today's meeting?"

(I also posted this on the AAUP board)

Well, I sat in the peanut gallery and observed. I hope someone else will also report, as I’m sure my account will be stilted.

Endless discussions of how Shelby can retain the right to monitor e-mail (and phones and computer seizures, etc., etc.). Lee Gore was there to suggest that it was improper to seek the approval of a judge, as a judge would be involved only in a “criminal matter” and they want the right to run these “investigations” in non-criminal matters. Several PUCers repeatedly pressed for an example of an appropriate, but non-criminal issue, and Gore kept coming up with examples which were rather obviously criminal (misuse of funds, hacking into defense computers, etc.). Gore/Shelby suggest that they should seek advice from the state attorney general before electronic surveillance. Again, after being pressed by several PUCer’s, Gore conceded that he was the representative from the AG. PUCers attempted to get some faculty committee or other in the mix, but (in a cruelly ironic twist) Shelby became concerned with confidentiality.

Shelby did agree to let the faculty handbook committee finalize the handbook. (He seemed to be wanting the deans to do it??? I was unclear on that point).

There was also a long discussion of turning the PUC into an elected body. Shelby seemed to have a great deal of trouble understanding why anyone would prefer democracy. He ultimately agreed to have a campus-wide vote taken, to see if people would prefer an elected vs. an appointed PUC. (That’s right– we are going to vote to see if we want to vote.) Personally, I hope there is a third choice: elected, appointed or disbanded.

I would also like to add that it certainly appeared to me that none of the PUCers really wanted to be there. They seem to be either hiding (many were silent) or were pushing Shelby as hard as they thought they could. None of this appeared to be their fault.

Date: May 26, 2004

There are a couple of reports over of the AAUP board:

http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=24082&subForumID=36767&action=viewTopic&commentID=602141

I guess, for the next few days, most of us will be checking both boards!

I'm pleased to hear that some members of the PUC gave SFT some resistance. I commend them.

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tinctoris
"
Endless discussions of how Shelby can retain the right to monitor e-mail (and phones and computer seizures, etc., etc.). Lee Gore was there to suggest that it was improper to seek the approval of a judge, as a judge would be involved only in a “criminal matter” and they want the right to run these “investigations” in non-criminal matters. Several PUCers repeatedly pressed for an example of an appropriate, but non-criminal issue, and Gore kept coming up with examples which were rather obviously criminal (misuse of funds, hacking into defense computers, etc.). Gore/Shelby suggest that they should seek advice from the state attorney general before electronic surveillance. Again, after being pressed by several PUCer’s, Gore conceded that he was the representative from the AG. PUCers attempted to get some faculty committee or other in the mix, but (in a cruelly ironic twist) Shelby became concerned with confidentiality.

"

Why would this (demonstrable justification for any monitoring, legal approval, and oversight) be a major sticking point with Thames unless he intends to continue arbitrary monitoring when the mood strikes him, or is doing so presently? Or am I missing the point?

AE

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Austin Eagle
"

Why would this (demonstrable justification for any monitoring, legal approval, and oversight) be a major sticking point with Thames unless he intends to continue arbitrary monitoring when the mood strikes him, or is doing so presently? Or am I missing the point?

AE"

No, that is the point. There also seems to be a desire to retroactively justify his actions against F&G. In a sort of bizzaro world kind of way, of course.

Date: May 26, 2004

Tinctorus,

Can you tell us any more about the discussion concerning turning the PUC into an elected body? Why was SFT so much against the idea of having the PUC represent the other elected bodies on campus? Anything further you can tell us about this discussion would be appreciated; thanks!

Date: May 26, 2004

Why doesn't Shelby Thames want to deal with elected people? Interesting question.

It is obvious that he is not interested in anything that smacks of a democratic process because he is not in favor of that. He wants to make and enforce the rules. Actually, I think he would more comfortable without useless rules and due process that just makes things inefficient.

While stating that he requires a broader representation from the university community, what he really wants is no discernable opposition. Having watched faculty senate over the last year or two, it is clear to me that faculty senate has a lot of breadth in terms of faculty opinion. After all, it took two years for faculty senate to vote no confidence. It was a long, thoughtful decision made when it became crystal clear that Shelby Thames has no interest in shared governance.

Date: May 26, 2004

The PUC has got to go. It's only about 2 weeks old, and already everyone is over it. Stick a fork in it, please!

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Tinctorus,
Can you tell us any more about the discussion concerning turning the PUC into an elected body? Why was SFT so much against the idea of having the PUC represent the other elected bodies on campus? Anything further you can tell us about this discussion would be appreciated; thanks!"

My opinion is that it is necessary for him to discredit the faculty senate (and grad. council, etc., etc.) because he doesn’t want to address all of the votes against him and his VP. ...or acknowledge reading the open letter in the HA. He kept implying that the FS was not representative– including a strange anecdote about some professor who said he’d never had any contact with his FS representative. (Ironically, how many of us could name even three people on the PUC?) Mostly his argument consisted of rather weak appeals to “community” and such. He wants the PUCers to be representative without actually representing anyone in particular.

It doesn’t make sense to me, either.