Professor VanNess:

Praise the Lord!  Thank you for your remarks.

Geevarghese


At 11:43 AM 9/11/03 -0400, Shela Vanness wrote:
>In response to Betsy Darken's observations of the provost's lack of
civility at the Faculty Meeting, I would add that the style of his
presentation in my opinion was very adversarial, suggesting the message
that a) Gavin has no right to raise questions of the administration, and b)
somehow the provost considers himself a victim. What a stretch of
imagination on both counts. He employed the media against the faculty, by
referring to the reporter who was present, in an apparent attempt to defame
Gavin Townsend and by implication any faculty. He made sure that the public
would be aware of Gavin's questionable decision, but did not really own the
fact that ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES APPARENTLY MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR ONE
PERSON'S SIGNATURE TO SPEND $60,000. The fact that this was true reflects
very poorly on the administrative process at UTC.
>As I see it, we have 2 problems: the present administration does not act
with respect or integrity toward the faculty and its needs in general. We
all have plenty of examples of this fact. The administration does not
believe they need to bring us to the table when important decisions are
made, and instead, act with impunity. Secondly, UTC is structured like a
medieval landholding. The administration lives by the work we do, and enjoy
salaries far above those of most faculty. Faculty are in the role of serfs
who produce the educational product, endure low pay, larger classes, etc.,
and then serve on committees, while only advising the administration. We
have no say really, about any decisions of import. This structural problem
needs to be rectified by changing to a shared-governance model. Faculty
have real say in many if not most US universities. We need to reflect on
how to bring about significant changes on both these issues this year.
>Shela Van Ness
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Betsy Darken <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:24:42 -0400
>Subject: [UTCSTAFF] The Provost and Tuesday's Faculty Meeting
>
>Related to Jim Ward's points about how to improve the working atmosphere
>around here, I wish to address what I regard as an extremely disturbing
>event at the faculty meeting yesterday. As Miss Manners would say, civility
>is a particularly important virtue at times like these.   Civility, as in
>"civil behavior," was not the outstanding feature of the provost's
>presentation at the faculty meeting yesterday.  For the information of
>those who were not at this meeting, Provost Friedl chose to respond point
>by point to the 20 questions posed by Dr. Gavin Townsend in a recent
>UTCSTAFF email.  I believe that it is accurate to say that in the process
>he excoriated Dr.Townsend.  Here are my concerns.
>
>1.   The inappropriate nature of Dr. Friedl's attack on Gavin Townsend
>
>The provost chose to share with the faculty circumstances related to the
>firing of Dr. Townsend as Director of the Honors Program this summer.
>While Dr. Townsend may or may not have made bad decisions related to the
>Honors Program, I suggest that Dr. Friedl showed very poor judgment in
>airing this personnel matter to the entire faculty.  As far as I am aware
>(and I've been here 24 years), up until yesterday no UTC administrator has
>ever discussed the circumstances surrounding an individual personnel
>decision in a public forum.  The reasons for this unspoken rule are
>obvious. For instance, if I had an insolent student in my class, I wouldn't
>tell the whole class about the poor grades this student was making nor make
>fun of his dumb mistakes.  Nor would I expect a department head to be rude
>and uncivil to a complaining faculty member at a departmental meeting,
>regardless of provocation.  It is simply not appropriate to humiliate
>people in public forums...unless you believe that other concerns override
>civility.   I argue that that is a very bad position to take for those
>trying to restore trust and good will on this campus. (Note:  I have read
>over Dr. Townsend's "20 questions" email. In this email, Dr. Townsend was
>not exactly cool, calm, and collected.  But it was certainly not a personal
>attack against the provost of the sort that the Provost launched against
>him yesterday.)
>
>
>Dr. Friedl also showed poor judgment because, by personally attacking Dr.
>Townsend, Dr. Friedl would seem to be trying to suppress criticism of the
>administration.  As one of my colleagues put it after the meeting, his
>remarks came across as aiming to "crush dissent."  Perhaps Dr. Friedl
>intended for his remarks to crush dissent.  In this case, so much for
>collegiality.  (So bring on the union?)  Or perhaps Dr. Friedl failed to
>realize that his remarks could be interpreted in this light.  In this case,
>Dr. Friedl, please be aware:  they CAN and have been interpreted in this
>light.
>
>2.  The lack of substance in some answers provided by the Provost
>
>From my own viewpoint, the 20 questions raised by Gavin Townsend were a
>mixed bag.  Some went right by me while others struck home (for instance,
>the question about funding for general education...).  As the provost
>himself said, many of these questions deserve answers.  Straightforward
>answers.  My impression was that the Provost was reverting to his training
>as a lawyer when answering some questions.  Don't get me wrong--some of my
>best friends are lawyers, but straight talk is not their forte.  For
>example, consider the provost's answers to Gavin Townsen's questions #14
>and #15:
>
>"14.  How does the adminstration intend to pay four new faculty members
>$200,000 each next year?"  [As I understand it, these are the four
>SIMCenter faculty.]
>"15.  How much money has the SimCenter cost the university at this point?
>When will the Center become self-supporting?"
>Maybe I missed something, but what I learned from the Provost's answers were:
>(a)  The salaries that the faculty receive are all less than $200,000. (I
>vaguely recall that they start at $117K and go up.)  For those of us
>watching the overheads,  we learned that when the costs of benefits are
>tacked on, the cost to the university comes close to $200,000 per SimCenter
>faculty member.
>(b)  I do not recall the provost answering the first part of question 15.
>(This may have been because I was so entranced by the four faculty salaries
>being shown on the overheard screen.)  However, to the second part of #15 I
>believe he said that it would be around 5 (?) years.
>
>This did not answer the main question.  It is true that Dr. Townsend did
>not spell it out, but I think we all figured it out for ourselves:  Can UTC
>afford to start up an expensive project like the SimCenter during a huge
>and ongoing budget crisis?   A straightforward answer (that I am making up
>off the top of my head, knowing little about the SimCenter) might have
>been, "Yes, it's amazingly expensive and these faculty members are being
>paid an unbelievable amount of money compared to almost everybody else (?)
>at UTC, but that's the going rate for people of their caliber in that
>profession.  But it will be worth it to UTC because the project is
>incredibly prestigious and everyone will think more highly of UTC because
>of it.  Not only that, it will bring in so much grant money that it will be
>a moneymaker for UTC in a few years."  Another straightforward answer might
>have been,  "Yes, the timing on the SimCenter is poor, and all that money
>going into it right now is unfortunate given how we've had all these budget
>cuts, but it's been in the pipeline for a long time and can't just be cut
>off in midstream.  But remember that in a few years it'll make money, etc.,
>etc."   (Please note that these are made-up answers.  I don't know what I
>am talking about.  They just sound plausible.)
>
>I do appreciate the provost answering the question I raised about
>operational carry-over funds and travel funds.  That second answer made
>sense.  Alert to faculty:  the deans now have a little extra money and one
>of their choices on how to spend it is to put some money into travel funds.
>However, the latter might not be on the deans' top priority list.
>(Personally, I think those adjuncts teaching composition to larger classes
>in the English department should have top priority when adjustments are
>made.)
>
>I have raised these points because I believe in civility and straight talk.
>Lord knows, it is hard to remain civil during heated discussions, but I
>urge that we all strive to do so.  It is especially important to note that
>the importance of remaining civil increases for those with increased power
>and authority.
>
>I hope that we hear straight talk in tomorrow's meeting.  And I ask that we
>all remain civil...until the revolution, of course.  But frankly, I don't
>much care for revolutions.  War is the very last resort and the aftermath
>is never pretty.*
>
>
>*See Iraq.
>
>p.s.  I am pleased to note that UTC does not have branch campuses,
>especially in Dayton.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Mathematics Department, #6956
>UT-Chattanooga
>615 McCallie Ave, Chattanooga, TN  37403
>Phone:423-425-4580;Fax: 423-425-4586; Email: [log in to unmask]
>