>This morning I received the following message from Verbie Prevost, which I
find so disappointing that I am going to break a rule I have previously
maintained not to share private messages. You can form your own judgement if
I am justified, but I have to ask myself why it is so difficult on this
campus to have an open and honest exchange of ideas, even ones that our
leaders may not be comfortable with. I do not enjoy engaging in
parliamentary tactics, nor do I appreciate being patronized.
>
>Before you read on, let me review the events. Verbie attended and
participated in our open resolution on March 26th. It was clear we were
going to produce a resolution. Earlier that week a colleague of mine (I was
in class) circulated a petition that we thought we needed to get such a
resolution on the agenda and I sent it to Verbie immediately, not last week.
In the last three weeks she has not picked up the phone to inform me that
proper procedure has not been followed.  I posted on Raven the week after
our meeting the edited resolution, and later prepared a hard copy with the
two additional amendments which I then sent to Verbie on April 12: she
should have received them April 13th. She did not tell me that procedures
were different. I assumed that anything sent to her would reach the
secretary. Is the secretary now setting the agenda? Not likely. Now I learn
that the resolution has been delegated to "other business."

I have checked with Jim Hiestand, our pariamentarian, and he informs me the
agenda can be changed in two ways: 1) the presiding officer (Verbie) can
announce the change, as I hope she will be persuaded to do so; 2) a motion
from the floor to discuss an agenda change can be made, and if seconded,
discussion follows and a majority vote is needed to change the agenda.  I
intend to make such a motion if Verbie does not agree to make the change.

>What I don't think Verbie Prevost yet understands is that many faculty
might be willing to reluctantly support the implementation plan, but only
after a resolution such as the one I have helped prepare. I have no choice
now but to advocate a second negative vote on the PRC resolution. You, the
faculty, decide whether we are being manipulated by our elected leader:
>
>
>At 09:44 AM 4/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>Richard, I have not heard lately about where you are on plans for
>>resolutions, whether you intend to bring before the faculty any or all of
>>those you put out on RAVEN before our last Faculty Council meeting and
>>before the adoption of the revised Implementation Plan.  When we met to set
>>the agenda for Tuesday's Faculty Meeting, the secretary had not received a
>>request from you or any other faculty members for any item(s) to be added
>>to the agenda.  I noted that I had received one weeks ago with ten
>>signatures (which, of course, does not conform to the Handbook) but with no
>>follow-up.  Thus without a proper request to add an item and no time to
>>delay sending out the agenda, we decided we could not arbitrarily add it
>>ourselves.  You can, of course, and I assume will, bring your resolutions
>>up under Other Business if you still feel they are relevant after the
>>revisions in the Implementation Policy.  That obviously always provides a
>>place for any concerns not covered by the agenda.  You can alert me ahead
>>of your plans if you wish or just wait and let me know Tuesday.
>>Verbie
>>
>>
>>
>>Verbie Lovorn Prevost
>>Katharine Pryor Professor of English
>>Director of English Graduate Studies
>>University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>>Phone: 423-755-4627
>>FAX: 423-785-2282
>>email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>