I chose to respond as a main post because I'm never sure how many see the comments under the main posts.
First, I do emphasize a bit with Tully's comment. I was surprised to see the letter to the provost posted since the blog goes beyond the University. But realize that most (all?) the points had been reported in the minutes of the 4/1/ and 4/15 Council meetings and that this letter had already been sent to all A&S faculty, so it's not new knowledge to most readers. Also realize that people outside the A&S college, most notably the BOT have publicly stated that they felt the vote of no confidence was "without merit," and that it was "shameful" even though they admitted that they didn't know what the issues were. Well, now they know what the issues are.
As for Tully's comment that the letter shouldn't have been sent -- the chair of Council had little choice since the Main Campus Provost requested it, apparently as a condition for or in lieu of meeting with the Executive Committee of Council. Let me summarize the sequence of events.
Tuesday, April 15: Vote of "no confidence" in the Dean passes Council 42-7. Council chair announces that the Executive Committee will contact the Main Campus Provost for a meeting and that the Executive Committee will meet on Friday, April 18 to summarize complaints against the Dean to discuss with the Main Campus Provost in preparation for that meeting.
Friday, April 18: Council Executive Committee meets and hammers out list of complaints.
Monday, April 21: Chair of Council e-mails the Provost and asks that Executive Committee meet with her.
Wednesday, April 23: The Provost e-mails Council Executive Committee and requests a specific list of concerns that she can review.
Thursday, April 24: Chair of Council e-mails the Provost and states: "The A&S Council Executive Committee feels it is important to meet with you directly to discuss our vote of no confidence before we send you a written complaint. This will allow us to give a more nuanced presentation, to convey the intensity of the Council’s concerns, and to retain flexibility. Furthermore it will protect Dean Lee because many of our concerns revolve around his honesty and truthfulness."
Monday, April 28: Having heard no further response from the Provost, after having consulted with other Council Executive Committee members, and having to report to Council at the meeting the next day, Chair of Council decides to honor the Provost's request and put the complaints in writing and e-mail those to her. This letter was also sent to all A&S faculty that afternoon.
Tuesday, May 1: Having heard no response from the Provost the Past-Chair of Council decides to post the letter to the blog.
It may make some people uncomfortable, but you should know the facts surounding the past-chair's decision to post the letter to the blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Fair enough. It's a question of style, IMHO, and what the world sees. This blog is now linked to blogs all over the country--all over the world--and it is an ideal opportunity to communicate thoughtfully and artfully your position. I hope that opportunity will be seized.
ps: I'm removing the original post for what might be obvious reasons. Now that the "letter" is moved down a little and not the first thing you see, mission accomplished. Adieu!
I get your point and also feel that the letter was not in the best of taste as a public blog post. My main reaction was to the comment that the letter should not have been sent, and I wanted to point out that the Chair did not want to write a letter but only did so because the Provost requested it.
I'm glad you decided to stick around.
Post a Comment