Professor Preble-Niemi is absolutely right and I WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Although not intended, I understand exactly how Provost Friedl would have 
taken offense at this passage.

For this I APOLOGISE ABJECTLY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION to Provost Friedl, 
Chancellor Brown and Professor Ernst.

I especially regret causing Provost Friedl any anguish because in my 
opinion he has done more than anyone else to promote openness and 
transparency and to state his positions forthrightly and in plain language.

Since I was given full opportunity to state my main substantive point--that 
incentives are too narrowly focused and the overall effect is likely to be 
deleterious to productivity, measured how you will--I have no need to say 
anything further.

Fritz Efaw.

At 03:02 PM 10/21/2005 -0400, Oralia Preble-Niemi wrote:
>Hi Fritz,
>
>I'm afraid you will have to eat crow on this.  Unfortunately, you did use 
>both of the terms John Friedl objects to (see the third line of the 
>snippet from your second installment that I've pasted below.
>
>>        I should perhaps add a personal note at this point.  I have found 
>> myself in a state of declining health over the last year or two, and it 
>> has been increasingly clear that to continue working 50 to 60 hours a 
>> week, as I have been, is not likely to lead easily to  an excessive 
>> merit rating.  I don't feel like ruining my health any longer for the 
>> sake of third-rate college operated by incompetents and fools.  I admit 
>> I am seething with anger.  Part of it is about my health, part of it is 
>> about the stupidity of this pay scheme, and part is about some personal 
>> setbacks I've encountered recently that are none of your 
>> business.  There is in fact nobody to blame for my health problems and 
>> my personal problems, so I'm taking it out on the easiest target of 
>> convenience, which is you, or at least, UTC.  If you're not as sanguine 
>> about this as Petersen claims to be,  too bad--that's what you get the 
>> big bucks for.
>
>In your shoes, I would start letting my comments rest a day or two before 
>sending them, so that you could edit out gratuitous remarks that are only 
>going to give ammunition to those who disagree with you.  I am distressed 
>that these two unfortunate terms have effectively closed the ears of those 
>who should indeed be listening to your very competent analysis of the 
>effects of this years's "merit pay" scheme.  If it's all the same to you, 
>I would prefer these remarks to remain between you and me.  If I had 
>wished general distribution, I would have sent it to everyone.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Lala