Colleagues,
These are hard times for Kutztown University. Vocal minorities on both sides of the vote have assailed the campus with their arguments. Sadly, in some cases, we have refined character assassination into a fine art.
There exists as witnesses to the debate, the majority of faculty who embrace the extremes of neither side. I believe that a majority would support a vote of no confidence if there was no viable option.
Dr. Cevallos’ letter last week poses an important dichotomy. It may be an honest and heartfelt effort to repair our campus and move Kutztown into a constructive future. It may be a calculated last-minute effort to disrupt an impending vote of no confidence that will irrevocably define Kutztown and the president’s future.
Both principle and pragmatism are compelling reasons to delay the vote. As a result of a delay, we may solve a critical majority of the problems we have cited in our bill of particulars. Conversely, during the course of a delay, we may expose the fundamental problem of leadership that has led to this crisis. In the former case, a vote will be rendered moot. In the latter, it will provide further evidence to proceed.
With these factors in mind, I have decided to postpone the vote of no confidence for a period of no more than thirty days.
This decision places a premium on Dr. Cevallos’ ability to lead. If we accept the overwhelming confidence vested in the president by both the Kutztown Board of Trustees and the PASSHE Board of Governors, he is well prepared for the task that is before him. Moreover, with the support of these two formidable bodies, there is no question that he will have the resources necessary to resolve the many matters affecting our campus.
APSCUF-KU is prepared to sign binding agreements that the president’s leadership will produce. It is important to consider that the bargaining unit will have the authority to hold the administration to its proposed solutions. The University Senate lacks that authority. Small groups of faculty and town hall meetings also lack any legal standing. If Dr. Cevallos sincerely wants to provide concrete solutions to our many problems, the union is at the end of his path.
With these thoughts in mind, I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday.
Dr. Michael D. Gambone
Professor of History
APSCUF-KU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It appears that yet once again this APSCUF leadership has shown its disdain for proper parliamentary procedure and for proper consultation of the faculty that make up its membership. Once again, Mike Gambone, Kevin Mahoney, and Paul Quinn have taken it upon themselves to crown themselves the royalty of the University and have shown themselves to be nothing more than simple antagonists, willing at all costs to keep the university in chaos.
Yes, this University is in troubled times, mostly because of YOU THREE! It seems to me that after 45 members of rep council agreed to the vote, that if the vote was to be postponed at all, then those same members should have been counseled once again. But no, King Gambone has decided otherwise. If anyone even reads this blog anymore (which I doubt, its a joke in the saddest way possible), I hope you see what this union leadership is all about; themselves. They utilize the same, if not worse, tactics of no communication of which they accuse President Cevallos. Read Gambone’s note carefully; basically what he says is that he doesn't believe in governance at all, only the UNION has any power or should have any power. THIS is collegiality? THIS is collaboration? This is what a University of professional scholars is supposed to act like? No, it reminds me more of what would be expected of steel workers, or coal miners, or auto workers...the tactics, the secrecy, the intimidation, the ends by any means approach.
In hindsight, how I wish the three of you had left our University long ago, or better yet, never have come in the first place; your type are not wanted or needed here. Why don't you just leave instead of hiding behind "trying to make things better." You can certainly do that by Just LEAVING. You have done more in one month to bring this University down than Dr. Cevallos could have done in ten years.
And no, I will not sign this note, because, YOU are the ones who seek recrimination when you don't agree with someone.
I realize as an outsider my opinion might not matter much, but what the hell...
It's clearly anonymous' choice to remain anonymous. However, it's really hard to take accusations of irresponsibility seriously from somebody who won't take responsibility for his/her own accusations.
I've known the targets of these accusations for years and find them at best untenable. Our union, across the state, needs more people who are willing to take significant risks to their own well-being in order to improve your campus and our system, not fewer, and these kinds of attacks neither advance the cause of rightness nor address the substantive issues that Mike, Kevin, Paul (and lots of others, by the way, including 45 members of your rep council) have raised.
An anonymous personal attack. Good heavens.
A note on parliamentary procedure. My understanding was that in Rep Council we voted to AUTHORIZE the Vote of No Confidence to go forward. We DID NOT say when the vote should take place. My understanding was that we left that for Executive Council to decide.
It is true that Dr. Gambone said that they were going to shoot for the week before Spring Break, but I certainly don't feel like anyone stepped on my toes. Sounds to me like Executive Council is being reasonable and trying everything they can to try and get those problems resolved.
I just don't understand all the hate that "anonymous" has. I just hope that Mike Gambone, Paul Quinn (and others I'm sure) don't think that personal attacks like that are representative of all the faculty. Sure, I've disagreed with some decisions...but, I can't think of any place I've ever worked or any organization I've ever belonged to where I've agreed with everything the leadership did.
I chalk that up to being how life is. And, frankly, I am more afraid of "anonymous" than I am of Mike Gambone. Unbelievable.
to Seth, oh, you mean the "anonymous" opinions that Dr. Gambone and company have forwarded to faculty over the past month for "fear of recrimination from the administration" are different? In what way, pray tell? Apparently, you did not read the last line of the poster's writing. Hypocritical comments at best on your part if you support one version of "anonymous commenting" but not another, basically for the same reasons.
So, just to clarify: given anonymous's critique, "This is what a University of professional scholars is supposed to act like?," I am assuming that anonymous is showing us what he/she thinks SHOULD be the ways professional scholars are supposed to act.
Put another way, is this the kind of communication that anonymous teaches his/her students? How does one assess the learning outcomes for that?
at least I concentrate on teaching during classroom time, and not using that time to espouse union positions to the students, utilizing my position of realtive authority, to advance an agenda. This has been reported to me by several students. Are they lying as well? For what purpose? At least my comments and critiques are kept outside the classroom, not in it. The bottom line is, Pandora's box has been opened, and APSCUF-KU has no idea how to close it again, and this is good for no one. Where is the focus on the students?
LOGICAL FALLACY: AD HOMINEM
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
ad ho·mi·nem /æd ˈhɒmənəm‑ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad hom-uh-nuhm‑nem, ahd-]
–adjective
1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Compare ad feminam.
[Origin: < L: lit, to the man]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.]
How about looking up "arrogance" and "ad infinitum"?
ARROGANCE:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
ar·ro·gance /ˈærəgəns/ Pronunciation[ar-uh-guhns]
–noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
Also, ar·ro·gan·cy.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME < MF < L arrogantia presumption. See arrogant, -ance]
AD INFINITUM:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
ad in·fi·ni·tum /æd Pronunciation[ad in-fuh-nahy-tuhm,
–adverb
to infinity; endlessly; without limit.
[Origin: < L]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.]
You were right anonymous! That did help me understand your posts better. Thanks for the insight. And looking things up in the dictionary is fun!
I'm not disputing the "right" to post (here or elsewhere) anonymously. I'm commenting on the tension between highly personal attacks, on the one hand, and the unwillingness to claim them, on the other.
I also understand the fear of recrimination, very well (long story, not APSCUF-related; contact me offblog if you'd like to hear about it). However, long experience taking unpopular positions has taught me that making myself visible is actually the best protection against recrimination. That way, if something actually does happen to you, everybody knows why. And if nothing happens to you, you've at least registered your suspicion in a way people can use.
More to the point, I know your leadership pretty well and, while I can see how their style might strike some people as belligerent, I really don't think they're the ones you need to be concerned with. They didn't open this can of worms for fun, y'know?
Post a Comment