Anonymous said...What do you mean? Are you talking about the board meeting?
4:41 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...The board members are at each others' throats. They've never been more divided and angry. And at the center of it all.....?
4:52 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...Recently, the chair of Curriculum went to a senate cabinet meeting and was asked to resign. Just like that. Out of the blue. No explanation. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence, trust. Even if there were some sort of reason for this action, surely there was a better way!
5:19 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...No one knows what happened. It's all just speculation.
5:30 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...5:19 to 5:30 -- Nope. I got it from the horse's mouth. That's not speculation.
5:42 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...Can the cabinet do that? Didn't we just vote Kathy in a few months ago?
5:55 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...What would go so wrong that they would ask a longtime faculty leader to resign - overturning the will of the faculty who had just voted her into office? (I thought the wording of the announcmrnt email was a bit cold, by the way. It sort of stung. A bit rude.)
6:04 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...I don't see why this happened the way it did. Why wasn't it brought by to the Senate as a whole for discussion?
6:08 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...I was told (from a very reliable person who was in the room) that the request was attributed to the entire cabinet. Is that right? It's hard to believe that those people (or a majority of them) would go along with this. They might go along with a change of "curriculum" leadership, but they would never go about it in this way, after K's many years of service. This just doesn't add up. And it stinks. This is the kind of stuff that discourages faculty from participating in governance. I sure hope cabinet members come to their senses and clear this up.
6:29 PM, November 17, 2009
[A gossipy comment was deleted.]
Anonymous said...Kathy has earned a plaque and the gratitude of her colleagues. So much for integrity.
7:04 PM, November 17, 2009
Anonymous said...
Great graphics, Mr. von Traven. Snake Pit indeed...
6:08 AM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
There are at least three issues re the sacking (resignation) of the Curriculum chair: (1) The reason for the decision (to request the resignation); (2) The treatment of the chair with regard to the cabinet decision and communicating that decision to her; (3) The transparency/propriety of the entire process (or lack thereof), including notification and involvement of faculty. 1. It is entirely possible that grounds for the decision (1) were adequate. The concern about this incident is not about (1). 2. If what reliable sources tell us is true, the failure to bring the chair into the discussion/decision and the sudden/abrupt manner in which the decision was communicated to her is unfortunate and less-than-collegial. It appears unnecessarily harsh and sneaky and opaque, and it may have involved questionable assertions regarding the decision process. 3. The manner in which this occurred reeks of unprofessionalism and opacity and inspires (further) distrust of senate leadership, which has, this semester, inspired suspicions of a too cozy and trusting association with administration, which, in recent months, has been conniving and dishonest (yeah, right: we "found some extra money" to hire part-timers as full-timers for a semester; yes, chill out, we're really on top of this "early college" mess).
11:45 AM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Don't committee chairs serve at the pleasure of the IVC Senate president?
2:17 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
They had it all planned in advance which is how/why they had some one ready to take over just like that.
2:30 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Careful folks. Those of you who don't like the idea that a faculty member was asked to step down from a post in a cabinet meeting should consider the alternatives you're suggesting: (1) that it be done privately one on one or (2) that the decision be aired and discussed on the floor of the senate. The first method could be construed as a personality conflict between two people, rather than a thoughtfully considered decision of a leadership group. The second would involve a very public discussion of a faculty member's performance in a position--which is why it is common, at all levels of governance, to hold such discussions in closed sessions and private meetings. The cabinet is the appropriate arena for the discussion and the decision about the most important role of the senate: overseeing curriculum.
10:53 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
10:53 - I think that's a prime example of an either/or fallacy if I've ever seen one. Either THIS or THAT - no other options that might preserve integrity and transparency? Like so much lately, this all feels contrived, staged, managed. (see, reading Dissent does teach you something!)
11:16 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
Well, "either/or" fallacy: those were the alternatives people were suggesting. I didn't engage in the fallacy, I merely addressed people's comments on how it should've been handled. Rather than incorrectly accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy, why don't you explain a "third way" that is not contrived, staged, or managed, and that preserves integrity and transparency. Perhaps then the senate cabinet and the rest of us can learn something from reading the Dissent. I for one would like to know how to balance a faculty member's need for dignity and privacy, and the faculty at large's desire for transparency. How do you suggest that one be handled?
11:36 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
As I suggested elsewhere: What bothers me is the odd and seemingly brutal way that this decision (to request resignation) was made. I can see no reason why the cabinet could not have arranged for a discussion (formal and otherwise), including the chair, concerning the advisability of new leadership--leading to a suggestion that she resign--something that she could choose to accept or not. It is highly likely that she would go along with the suggestion if it were backed by enough of the cabinet. (In fact, knowing the chair, I find any other scenario almost inconceivable.) The approach that was taken seems sneaky and cowardly, and it involves reference to a cabinet that made a decision--even though the Chair was a member of that cabinet and yet excluded from the decision-making. Evidently, the senate Prez imposed a gag order regarding much of this. Wow. That's some transparency. With faculty already suspicious that the real decision-making is going on somewhere else (trust Craig's committee!), this is a poor time to make these kinds of "black box" moves. And so, yes, someone above plainly committed a false dilemma fallacy. They ignored the alternative that would first come to mind for most of us who've had experience serving on the cabinet. Why get ham-fisted and mysterious when collegiality and openness are available?
11:53 AM, November 19, 2009
20 comments:
What do you mean? Are you talking about the board meeting?
The board members are at each others' throats. They've never been more divided and angry. And at the center of it all.....?
Recently, the chair of Curriculum went to a senate cabinet meeting and was asked to resign. Just like that. Out of the blue. No explanation. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence, trust. Even if there were some sort of reason for this action, surely there was a better way!
No one knows what happened. It's all just speculation.
5:19 to 5:30 -- Nope. I got it from the horse's mouth. That's not speculation.
Can the cabinet do that? Didn't we just vote Kathy in a few months ago?
What would go so wrong that they would ask a longtime faculty leader to resign - overturning the will of the faculty who had just voted her into office?
(I thought the wording of the announcmrnt email was a bit cold, by the way. It sort of stung. A bit rude.)
I don't see why this happened the way it did. Why wasn't it brought by to the Senate as a whole for discussion?
I was told (from a very reliable person who was in the room) that the request was attributed to the entire cabinet. Is that right? It's hard to believe that those people (or a majority of them) would go along with this. They might go along with a change of "curriculum" leadership, but they would never go about it in this way, after K's many years of service. This just doesn't add up. And it stinks. This is the kind of stuff that discourages faculty from participating in governance. I sure hope cabinet members come to their senses and clear this up.
The board is in a food fight, and they're not throwing pies. Something's gotta give, and soon. The annual "organizational" meeting occurs in December. We'll see.
Kathy has earned a plaque and the gratitude of her colleagues. So much for integrity.
Great graphics, Mr. von Traven. Snake Pit indeed...
There are at least three issues re the sacking (resignation) of the Curriculum chair: (1) The reason for the decision (to request the resignation); (2) The treatment of the chair with regard to the cabinet decision and communicating that decision to her; (3) The transparency/propriety of the entire process (or lack thereof), including notification and involvement of faculty.
1. It is entirely possible that grounds for the decision (1) were adequate. The concern about this incident is not about (1).
2. If what reliable sources tell us is true, the failure to bring the chair into the discussion/decision and the sudden/abrupt manner in which the decision was communicated to her is unfortunate and less-than-collegial. It appears unnecessarily harsh and sneaky and opaque, and it may have involved questionable assertions regarding the decision process.
3. The manner in which this occurred reeks of unprofessionalism and opacity and inspires (further) distrust of senate leadership, which has, this semester, inspired suspicions of a too cozy and trusting association with administration, which, in recent months, has been conniving and dishonest (yeah, right: we "found some extra money" to hire part-timers as full-timers for a semester; yes, chill out, we're really on top of this "early college" mess).
Don't committee chairs serve at the pleasure of the IVC Senate president?
They had it all planned in advance which is how/why they had some one ready to take over just like that.
Careful folks. Those of you who don't like the idea that a faculty member was asked to step down from a post in a cabinet meeting should consider the alternatives you're suggesting: (1) that it be done privately one on one or (2) that the decision be aired and discussed on the floor of the senate. The first method could be construed as a personality conflict between two people, rather than a thoughtfully considered decision of a leadership group. The second would involve a very public discussion of a faculty member's performance in a position--which is why it is common, at all levels of governance, to hold such discussions in closed sessions and private meetings. The cabinet is the appropriate arena for the discussion and the decision about the most important role of the senate: overseeing curriculum.
10:53 - I think that's a prime example of an either/or fallacy if I've ever seen one. Either THIS or THAT - no other options that might preserve integrity and transparency?
Like so much lately, this all feels contrived, staged, managed.
(see, reading Dissent does teach you something!)
Well, "either/or" fallacy: those were the alternatives people were suggesting. I didn't engage in the fallacy, I merely addressed people's comments on how it should've been handled. Rather than incorrectly accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy, why don't you explain a "third way" that is not contrived, staged, or managed, and that preserves integrity and transparency. Perhaps then the senate cabinet and the rest of us can learn something from reading the Dissent. I for one would like to know how to balance a faculty member's need for dignity and privacy, and the faculty at large's desire for transparency. How do you suggest that one be handled?
As I suggested elsewhere: What bothers me is the odd and seemingly brutal way that this decision (to request resignation) was made. I can see no reason why the cabinet could not have arranged for a discussion (formal and otherwise), including the chair, concerning the advisability of new leadership--leading to a suggestion that she resign--something that she could choose to accept or not. It is highly likely that she would go along with the suggestion if it were backed by enough of the cabinet. (In fact, knowing the chair, I find any other scenario almost inconceivable.) The approach that was taken seems sneaky and cowardly, and it involves reference to a cabinet that made a decision--even though the Chair was a member of that cabinet and yet excluded from the decision-making. Evidently, the senate Prez imposed a gag order regarding much of this. Wow. That's some transparency. With faculty already suspicious that the real decision-making is going on somewhere else (trust Craig's committee!), this is a poor time to make these kinds of "black box" moves.
And so, yes, someone above plainly committed a false dilemma fallacy. They ignored the alternative that would first come to mind for most of us who've had experience serving on the cabinet. Why get ham-fisted and mysterious when collegiality and openness are available?
Post a Comment