The following was posted on Raven last Friday:

        "One outcome of last week's faculty meeting is that our faculty and the
        Records office must now invest time and effort into approving our
        graduation candidates list through a flurry of emails.  Thus, Wednesday's
        quorum call, while within parliamentary rights, was a symbolic protest of
        labor conditions at UTC which ended up creating more work for faculty and
        staff.  I call this a "labor-losing device."  I suppose some of my
        backbench colleagues feel that they accomplished something of substance,
        but it seems to me that "the crew will flog themselves (or each other)
        until morale improves" would sum up the situation."


I would like to offer my response to that comment:

I was one of the  "backbench colleagues" who called for the quorum.  The
intention was never to overburden the Records Office with the flurry of
email votes.  The absurdity of the issue is that it was somehow "decided"
that such an activity was legal.  According to Robert's Rules the only
action that can legally be taken after a failed quorum call is to set
another meeting time.  How this evolved into the email mess that we have
defies any logic I am familiar with. If this type of "voting" is
permissible, then I suppose that any future meetings and any future
business can also be conducted in cyberspace with virtual voting and
discussion on the web. Does this not imply that there is really no need for
faculty meetings or the Faculty Senate?  I am relatively certain that some
administrators would like nothing better.  Proposals could be posted and
"approved" without all those the pesky questions from faculty or staff.

My motivation was not a "symbolic protest of labor conditions at UTC"  but
rather an attempt to ensure that the business of the faculty be conducted
by the faculty, and that administrative proposals be subject to the
scrutiny of the whole faculty.  Otherwise, the administration can claim
that their proposals were presented to the entire faculty and were received
without a negative vote.  Consequently,  they can later claim our tacit
approval of their agenda. A priority list was presented by the Provost and
a summary of the Lupton money by the Chancellor.  Shouldn't a majority of
the faculty have been present possibly to question or challenge the items
on the lists?  Was it not abundantly clear that the priority list from the
Provost included over $1,000,000 for the Sim Center salaries and that the
Chancellor's list had over $5,000,000 for the Sim Center from the Lupton
monies and that there were no objections and certainly no opposition from a
majority of the faculty?  How could there be, when a majority of the
faculty weren't even there!  Hence,  we have a  majority that did not
object.


We are told repeatedly that the faculty has absolute control over the
curriculum and the graduation requirements,  yet the latest information
seems to indicate otherwise.  We will adopt the 120 hour rule while we
collectively moan about the decline of standards and performance of
students.  Apparently, we do not control the curriculum as we have been
told so often.  Shall we now surrender our right to determine who graduates
as well?  Why is the complaint directed at those who were at the meeting as
opposed to those who were not?

Another meeting time should have been set and the reports of the Provost
and Chancellor should not have been accepted. Rather , we should have
insisted
that they be presented to the full faculty.  As it is, we have a
cyber-mess on the voting problem and an administration with a mandate to
continue the carnage of the academic programs.


Gene Schlereth