Fritz Efaw wrote:
> Misdirection is a technique used by prestidigitators ...
> ... Last week's senate meeting contained a deftly
> executed misdirection.

I resent the charge of misdirection.  You can agree with me or not, but
WYSIWYG ... what you see is what you get.  I have some sincere concerns
about the bills you were pushing, and I wanted more time for all faculty
to consider them before any votes were taken.  I used a standard
parliamentary procedure (tabling a motion) to buy that time.  By my
estimate of the voice vote, I would say about 3/4 of our faculty senate
colleagues agreed with me that more time was appropriate.  I don't think
it is fair to label my actions as "misdirection."  Your mileage,
however, may vary.  It usually does.

> Opponents of the motion quickly focused
> attention on the legislation and mis-characterized the motion as an
> endorsement of pending legislation rather than and endorsement of a
> salary increase.

I based my argument in favor of tabling the motion on the message that
Fritz, himself, sent directly to Faculty Senators (but not to all
faculty) *one day* before the Senate meeting.  To wit:

>>> Fritz Efaw wrote in a message to Faculty Senators yesterday:
>>> >>>>> The UTC Faculty Senate endorses an across-the-board increase of
>>> $1200 to
>>> >>>>> the base pay of every employee of the University of Tennessee as
>>> part of
>>> >>>>> any salary adjustment in the coming fiscal year, as provided in two
>>> >>>>> bills with bi-partisan sponsorship currently before the state
>>> >>>>> legislature--HB126 and SB790.

You, not I, referred to "as provided in two" (specific) "bills" in your
message.  I looked up these bills, even providing links so that others
could do so:

>>> >>> You can read the bills for yourself at these addresses:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SB0790.pdf
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/HB0126.pdf

I understood your motion as a request for Faculty Senate to endorse
these bills.  I find these bills to be unacceptable for the reasons I
mentioned during the meeting, among others.  Perhaps, if they are
amended to address these several concerns expressed by me and others, I
could support them.  But they had not been so amended by the time of the
meeting.  If nothing else, tabling the motion for at least two weeks
would have allowed the sponsors to make any needed changes.  I note,
however, that as of tonight no amendments have been filed, nor any
fiscal note added.  Therefore, I still cannot support these bills nor
any motion explicitly or implicitly endorsing them.

> On the tail of the mis-direction, a motion was made
> and seconded to table, which carried, shutting down debate before any
> rebuttal could be offered in response.

I have no desire to shut down *informed* debate.  However, I represent
my constituents, none of whom had more than one day to consider the
measure and inform me of their concerns.  We needed more information,
and we needed more time to assimilate it before voting.  If you want to
bring the subject back up at another meeting, that is fine with me and I
will debate the proposal on its merits or lack thereof.  But I will not
be part of a "railroad job" to ram an endorsement through without time
for adequate consideration by all faculty, including (but not limited
to) Senators.

> I had sent a memo to senators beforehand explaining that the motion was
> intended to be as simple and straightforward as possible, and that my
> intention was not to have faculty senate draft legislation

No, but your intent was obviously to have Faculty Senate *endorse*
legislation.  Which is not something we should do lightly, if at all
(one can agree or disagree with Roger Briley's comments).  *If* it is
appropriate that we endorse legislation -- and, like Roger, I'm not sure
it is -- that should only be done after careful consideration.  I did
not find one day's notice conducive to careful consideration of the
proposal on its merits.

> Rather,
> my intention was to call the Board's attention to a specific piece of
> legislation

Ah, so you admit that your intent was related to a specific bill(s)
rather than an across-the-board raise in general.  I could cry
"misdirection" as well upon reading this, but that would not contribute
to the quality of discussion.

> The motion was given to the senate president 3 days before the meeting

But to the rest of us, only one day before, and to faculty and staff in
general, not at all (had I not posted it to RAVEN).

> The motion doesn't ask for a raise for everyone in higher
> education--it asks for a raise for employees of the University of
> Tennessee.

But the *bills* clearly refer to all employees in higher education.  And
you *were* promoting specific bills, per your e-mail message to Faculty
Senators the day before the meeting and your admission above.

> It was made clear in senate that nobody receiving an
> unsatisfactory EDO or the equivalent would be eligible for a raise--this
> is university policy and was clarified last fall.

Ah, but that is cloaked by the overly broad language of the bills.  The
bills refer to all employees, not just all with satisfactory ratings.
Bills, when passed, become state law -- which supersedes university
policy.  Unless the bills were rewritten to refer to this policy, "all"
means "all" -- regardless of a satisfactory or unsatisfactory EDO
rating, full or part-time status, etc.  That is a huge weakness (or
maybe a very sly obfuscation, but I'm trying to give sponsoring
legislators the benefit of the doubt) in the proposed legislation.

(Take the previous statement in the context of the fact that I am not a
lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  For that matter, neither does Fritz.
Our Provost is an attorney and could perhaps clarify the legalities of
this matter.  But my clear understanding, absent authoritative
correction, is that bills, once passed and signed by the Governor,
become law ... and state laws cannot be overridden by University or THEC
policy.)

> The raise should also
> be pro-rated on an FTE basis, as I made clear in response to a RAVEN
> note posted by Claire McCullough.  The bills as written are defective
> for not stating this.

Glad you admit this.  It will save me much further argument....

> I would welcome any appropriate amendment to the
> MEMO, although presuming to amend the BILL is exactly what I wish to avoid.

I beg to differ.  I don't wish to endorse any bills, either explicitly
or implicitly, as long as they contain major flaws.  If amending the
bills before we endorse them is necessary, then we need to communicate
that to the sponsors.  After they amend the bills to make them
acceptable, then we can endorse them, if we feel we should and must.

> These are the things I wanted to say on Thursday before debate was shut
> down.

Say them at the next meeting, if you wish, or the one after that.  At
least we will have had two or four weeks to think about what we are
doing before acting.  What's the rush anyway?  TennCare reform is still
in the court system and *nothing* is going to happen with the state
budget before that is decided.  We'll be lucky if we have any kind of
state budget, with or without raises, before the end of June.

Again, I'll be happy to discuss the merits of these bills and any
associated motions at an appropriate time.  The last Faculty Senate
meeting, with one day's notice, was *not* an appropriate time.  The
majority of my Senate colleagues agreed.  Move to take the motion off
the table as you see fit, and if our colleagues concur, then we'll have
at it.  No misdirection required.  See you (checks watch) tomorrow, just
barely ;)

Joe Dumas

--
"One man with courage is a majority." -- Thomas Jefferson