Towering Irvine monolith, signifying nothing—or perhaps avarice—earlier this evening
Available: Tracy Daly's Board Meeting Highlights (for last night's board meeting), here.
opacity: the condition of lacking transparency
COMMENTS
Anonymous said...
The IVC Academic Senate seems to have a transparency problem. Maybe that’s it. The only reason we got an announcement of the Curriculum Chair’s “resignation” is that Kathy asked for that. Otherwise, it would have happened very quietly and it would have been announced long after it happened. --BB
4:43 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Is it true that Mathur's on the ropes? Has the little man met his Waterloo?
4:58 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Isn't Courses Chair a member of the cabinet? How could the cabinet ask her to resign unless they met without her to come to some decision? What happened?
5:34 PM, November 18, 2009
Anonymous said...
Come on guys, the meteor was about to hit! They had to act and quick and so they did. It's just a management style that has been hidden better than it was in this case. We're back to an "off with their heads" approach. Get over it.
11:03 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
The plural in the last comment (i.e. heads) is misplaced. There was already a co-chair in place since the end of last semester, which meant that the transition was already underway. There's no reason to assume that the modus operandi of the senate is to have heads roll. What's shocking people is that it's the faculty leadership initiating a sacking, not the administration. But is there really any "good" way to do it (assuming that there was an actual need for the "resignation" in the first place)? How can one ask a faculty member to step down without causing hurt feelings and/or misunderstandings? It's truly an unpleasant task all around. My understanding is that the cabinet members all like Kathy and consider her a friend. It couldn't have been an easy decision. I'd like to see a bit more empathy and consideration of the decision's impact on all the parties involved, not just the "sackee". It's a shame to see faculty turning on their own leadership, which probably thought it was acting responsibly in the interests of all faculty. I haven't heard a single cabinet member gossiping or otherwise discussing this decision in public...and I assume that's out of respect for Kathy's feelings, privacy and dignity.
11:26 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
11:26 said, "What's shocking people is that it's the faculty leadership initiating a sacking, not the administration." Well, no. That's no what's bothering me. 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. The approach 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. There's a larger issue as well. It's about transparency and distrust. Some leadership seems oblivious to a worry among faculty that things are no longer as they seem and that decisions are engineered on the basis of reasons not aired at the senate level.
11:46 AM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
oh, I think it IS administration and faculty leadership (or former faculty leaderhsip) behind it all.
4:47 PM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
11:46 What's cowardly and sneaky about discussing a problem in a cabinet meeting and asking the person to step down? It sounds like what you're suggesting IS what happened: a formal opportunity to answer concerns, an opportunity to resign, an arena for discussion....isn't that what the cabinet is and isn't that what it did? There's a lot of discussion on this blog based on innuendo, hearsay, and incomplete understanding of the facts.
7:09 PM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
It is an unfortunate circumstance and 7:09 is right on. For quite sometime, Roy's reports on this blog are based on innuendo, hearsay, and an incomplete understanding of the facts. It is sad to watch it happen and it is happening. I rarely, if ever, read this stuff anymore because of the inaccuracies but it is sad to watch Roy attack faculty colleagues and former friends. As I understand it, he made a complete fool of himself today and the senate leadership made it clear that he did not know what he was talking about and did not have the facts. This time Roy really got it wrong. Faculty are under attack from both Roy and Raghu. Heads will roll. Watch out for Roy. If you cross him or have a difference of opinion, he will get you. Sound familar?
8:21 PM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
A lot of times people attribute remarks to Roy that aren't made by Roy - I'm just saying. There seems to be an attempt to diminish the multiplicity of voices here - not all are Roy, not hardly. Just one. His is usually the most cautious. This blog gets somewhere 125-200 hits a day, folks. People check in when they get to work and the numbers jump at lunchtime.
8:29 PM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
Courses is an impossible job. Everyone knows that.
8:59 PM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
What can anyone say. Roy is getting it wrong these days more often than not. It's that simple. This blog has become a place for gossip mongering and a rumor mill and it wasn't always that way. I agree, it is unfortunate that this has happened.
9:20 PM, November 19, 2009
Anonymous said...
Gosh, Wendy, you really should stay off the blog.
9:25 PM, November 19, 2009
B. von Traven said...
I do not make anonymous comments. When I make comments, all know who made them. I invite those who find fault with us to disabuse us of our errors. (Seldom do they do that, unfortunately.) I see, however, that some brave commenters continue to hide behind anonymity even as they accuse me of "gossipmongering" (in fact, we make an effort to delete such stuff) and being in league with Raghu. (I guess.) If we have made an error, clearly identify the error and explain how it is erroneous. This blog has always attempted to get things right and to correct errors. And it has also always allowed people who disagree with us to express their opinions. -RB
9:45 PM, November 19, 2009
16 comments:
What do you mean? Did something happen last night?
The IVC Academic Senate seems to have a transparency problem. Maybe that’s it. The only reason we got an announcement of the Curriculum Chair’s “resignation” is that Kathy asked for that. Otherwise, it would have happened very quietly and it would have been announced long after it happened. --BB
Is it true that Mathur's on the ropes? Has the little man met his Waterloo?
Isn't Courses Chair a member of the cabinet? How could the cabinet ask her to resign unless they met without her to come to some decision? What happened?
There's nothing on today's senate agenda about the ouster of the Courses Chair.
Come on guys, the meteor was about to hit! They had to act and quick and so they did.
It's just a management style that has been hidden better than it was in this case.
We're back to an "off with their heads" approach. Get over it.
The plural in the last comment (i.e. heads) is misplaced. There was already a co-chair in place since the end of last semester, which meant that the transition was already underway. There's no reason to assume that the modus operandi of the senate is to have heads roll. What's shocking people is that it's the faculty leadership initiating a sacking, not the administration. But is there really any "good" way to do it (assuming that there was an actual need for the "resignation" in the first place)? How can one ask a faculty member to step down without causing hurt feelings and/or misunderstandings? It's truly an unpleasant task all around. My understanding is that the cabinet members all like Kathy and consider her a friend. It couldn't have been an easy decision. I'd like to see a bit more empathy and consideration of the decision's impact on all the parties involved, not just the "sackee". It's a shame to see faculty turning on their own leadership, which probably thought it was acting responsibly in the interests of all faculty. I haven't heard a single cabinet member gossiping or otherwise discussing this decision in public...and I assume that's out of respect for Kathy's feelings, privacy and dignity.
11:26 said, "What's shocking people is that it's the faculty leadership initiating a sacking, not the administration."
Well, no. That's no what's bothering me. 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. The approach 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. There's a larger issue as well. It's about transparency and distrust. Some leadership seems oblivious to a worry among faculty that things are no longer as they seem and that decisions are engineered on the basis of reasons not aired at the senate level.
oh, I think it IS administration and faculty leadership (or former faculty leaderhsip) behind it all.
11:46
What's cowardly and sneaky about discussing a problem in a cabinet meeting and asking the person to step down? It sounds like what you're suggesting IS what happened: a formal opportunity to answer concerns, an opportunity to resign, an arena for discussion....isn't that what the cabinet is and isn't that what it did? There's a lot of discussion on this blog based on innuendo, hearsay, and incomplete understanding of the facts.
It is an unfortunate circumstance and 7:09 is right on. For quite sometime, Roy's reports on this blog are based on innuendo, hearsay, and an incomplete understanding of the facts. It is sad to watch it happen and it is happening. I rarely, if ever, read this stuff anymore because of the inaccuracies but it is sad to watch Roy attack faculty colleagues and former friends. As I understand it, he made a complete fool of himself today and the senate leadership made it clear that he did not know what he was talking about and did not have the facts. This time Roy really got it wrong. Faculty are under attack from both Roy and Raghu. Heads will roll. Watch out for Roy. If you cross him or have a difference of opinion, he will get you. Sound familar?
A lot of times people attribute remarks to Roy that aren't made by Roy - I'm just saying.
There seems to be an attempt to diminish the multiplicity of voices here - not all are Roy, not hardly. Just one. His is usually the most cautious.
This blog gets somewhere 125-200 hits a day, folks. People check in when they get to work and the numbers jump at lunchtime.
Courses is an impossible job. Everyone knows that.
What can anyone say. Roy is getting it wrong these days more often than not. It's that simple. This blog has become a place for gossip mongering and a rumor mill and it wasn't always that way. I agree, it is unfortunate that this has happened.
Gosh, Wendy, you really should stay off the blog.
I do not make anonymous comments. When I make comments, all know who made them. I invite those who find fault with us to disabuse us of our errors. (Seldom do they do that, unfortunately.)
I see, however, that some brave commenters continue to hide behind anonymity even as they accuse me of "gossipmongering" (in fact, we make an effort to delete such stuff) and being in league with Raghu. (I guess.)
If we have made an error, clearly identify the error and explain how it is erroneous. This blog has always attempted to get things right and to correct errors. And it has also always allowed people who disagree with us to express their opinions. -RB
Post a Comment