Greetings:
It has been a busy week…with meetings on the golf course issue, student
legislative priorities with the alumni group Lobos for Legislation, the
steering committee for the Office of Institutional Diversity, the
Student Fee Review Board…and so I am just catching up on email.
I see that there is concern about the GPSA office staff situation. This
is a crucial issue and I understand that some people are disgruntled. I
definitely accept some of the blame cast my way, but there have been
some misconceptions along the way that only make the issue murkier. Let
me try to set the record straight.
In the Spring of 2006, the GPSA Council passed a resolution calling on
the future GPSA President to hire a 3/4 time staff person for the
office. Part of the rationale for the resolution was that this is how
ASUNM staffs its office. I was not GPSA President at the time.
When I entered the Presidency, I was set to perform this task, but when
I tried to hire that staff person I was informed by Debbie Morris,
Student Activities Director, that I could not because the previous
President and Finance Committee Chair had not funded the position in
their annual budget. So it wasn't until the budget for this year was in
place and red tape cleared that the things were ready to set the wheels
in motion to eventually perform this hire.
Of course hiring somebody through the proper administrative and human
resource channels couldn't take place overnight. Around this same time,
summer semester, all three of the part-time graduate/professional
student office employees left at around the same time. So the office had
to be immediately staffed by getting new graduate/professional student
employment; the formal admin hiring process would not fill the office
quick enough for the summer needs.
There was a graduate student who was actually staying in Albuquerque for
the summer and seeking on campus work, so this graduate student was
hired to make sure the office would remain open all summer. At the time
this person was an acquaintance of mine who had been in a class with me;
this person was not a "close friend". That this person became a friend
is a function of us working in close proximity; not the other way
around. No other person approached me looking for work at the time the
office needed filling. So I reject the notion that somebody was hired
just because they were a friend. And I will not apologize for becoming
friends with people. In fact I was friends with the previous part-time
graduate/professional student employees, but nobody questioned those
friendships (maybe because those people are personally better liked by
the questioners.)
Anyway, the office was sufficiently staffed over the summer, maintaining
regular open office hours for use of the computer lab and conference
room. After the summer ended, the graduate student employee had to cut
down on hours because of classes starting, so we needed to find another
graduate/professional student to help out. One acquaintance of mine who
is active in community affairs approached me about part-time employment
to supplement his graduate assistantship, so I brought that person on to
make sure the office would be open full hours all week. Again, no other
person approached me about helping out at the office. And again, I only
tangentially knew that person at the time of them coming here; they
weren't a "close friend". Once again I reject those charges and make no
apologies for becoming friends with somebody. It is a low point when
people indict the beautiful concept of friendship--a sign of the
unnecessary unproductive negativity ascendant in and around the GPSA.
Anyway, while we took the steps to hire a ¾ time admin, the office has
been open everyday upwards of ten hours per day. To ensure that the
office is open all the time and help available, I exercised the
president's constitutional prerogative of handling employment and
assigning tasks in order to fulfill the constitutional duty of
maintaining office hours. Although not all GPSA members come to the
office to get information or use the facilities, those that do probably
appreciate the open door and friendly attitudes. Anyway, jump to the
process to hire an admin.
The first step was to create a job description. First, a member of the
executive board drafted a job description. Then the executive board met
to discuss it. At that point another GPSA member made some other
recommendations for the position. Then the executive board tasked a
third person with integrating the two descriptions and coming up with a
final draft. This person did in fact take too much time in integrating
the descriptions and drafting a polished document. I take personal
responsibility for letting this take overly long and not fulfilling my
role as a taskmaster. I apologize for this temporary failure of properly
doing my managerial duties. It was a mistake to assign the task of
drafting the job description to the person that would be replaced. I
know that seems logical; but I didn't come to that realization it until
it was taking too long. After I asked about the job description it
finally made its way to my desk. From this point, as I reported in the
last council meeting, I sent the job description to human resources and
student activities. After a few days, they sent the job description back
to my office noting some wording problems in the description. I attended
to the changes. Because of this type of recurring bureaucratic
obstacles, I too share the frustration at the slow pace of setting
wheels in motion for the hire. But I do accept responsibility for the
mistakes I made, for sometimes getting distracted by the many things I
have to do as president, let alone as a student. Anyway, human resources
is working on this.
Now I would like to have a discussion on the bill to create project
assistantships, however I want that issue to be discussed on the merits
alone, not intruded upon by the accusations of the mistakes that I have
or haven't made. So in this letter, I will not bring up my ideas on the
issue. But I would like to say that the bill is not a means for me to be
able "to hire close friends"; this is not about me. It is about the
future of the GPSA. I am a lame duck president. This bill would apply to
the GPSA in years to come, involve other presidents.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that while the council passed language
for an admin, there was a debate on the issue, but at the end of a six
hour meeting, the last one of the year. The council was told that it had
to pass the budget in that meeting, and so some councilors with
reservations on the admin position still voted to pass the budget (where
the admin was mentioned) since the meeting was taking so long and a
budget had to be passed. Just saying so the issue is construed in the
proper light.
I encourage a healthy debate on the bill creating project
assistantships, but on the merits, not tied to concerns people have
about the current process which I have explained. Please feel free to
criticize me; I am responsible for some of the problems and also
frustrated by the pace of things with red tape. But please separate
complaints against me from the talks on the pros and cons of project
assistantships. I do not want whatever failures I have occasioned to
influence debate on the way toward future success of the GPSA.
Finally, I encourage all GPSA members to feel free to come to talk with
me. I understand that some people prefer anonymity--which is
understandable given the negativity and personal attacks that have
arisen in council meetings and on the listserv--and you would lose
anonymity by meeting in person. But please know that my door is always
open--literally--and I am available to further explain my actions as
well as discuss the benefits of project assistantships. We will post
this letter on the blog so there can be discussion without clogging up
the listserv.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Joseph J. García
President
Graduate and Professional Student Association (GPSA)
Ph.D. Student, Latin American Studies
Celullar: (505) 400-3802
Phone: (505) 277-3803
Fax: (505) 277-4159
http://www.unm.edu/~gpsa
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
242 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 242 of 242although Joseph does state his side of the "argument" for the office staff issue in the blog posting mentioned above, he doesn't answer many of the other questions brought up by the recall. What about the grants? I know SRAC is now out, just a bit late, but what about the ST grant? What about the budget? I have been a supporter of Joseph's, but the fact that we can't get any answers from him on these issues makes me want to sign the recall petition.
Could somebody justify why on earth race matters on a petition over logistics? Better yet, why is there a need for a survey when the council has three times issued a directive on the matter?
Race matters because Gene Henley mentioned in Daily Lobo article that GPSA was too busy with race and that it was one of the reasons he called for recall.
Survey matters because there are some council members who are not representing their departments, rather they are playing their personal politics.
Finally, slavery had to be debated in quaker circles for 100 years before they decided to stand against it. Council discussed...wanted to vote against their fellow grad students who could gain assistantships, did so... the discussion happened again, now people who cared for fellow students voted for grad assistantships...discussion ends.
WARNING! OFFENSIVE RANT CONTAINING BAD LANGUAGE AHEAD! READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL! If you are easily offended do not go any further. If you are pissed off about all this s*%t, read on!
To the previous anonymous.
How can you claim slavery is at stake here. Everyone in Graduate School is from the privileged elite. No one is stopping anyone from holding a job. Crying race about every issue is not a solution to anything. Nobody has total control over what you feel. So if you feel oppressed colonize the oppressors. Be part of the solution not more of the problem. Are minorities always going to squabble about who is oppressed? Or about how much they are personally being oppressed? Fuck You! I don't need or want your help. I am doing something to better myself. I am here!!
Getting a Phd is my was of showing the other poor disadvantaged people in the town where I grew up that there is more out there. Where is our own personal responsibility in not being oppressed. When do we refuse to be oppressed. Do instead of talk. I supported Joseph Garcia in what he was trying to do, but this had got to end. Where is his sense of responsibility? Does he just not want to admit that he made a mistake or laps in judgment. Is it to late to man up to what he said or did. Too much pride? Will he keep listening to the back room advisor's about this being all about race? Maybe he is just an asshole? We are we all entitled to our own opinion? Maybe more rhetoric from the attack dogs will solve this. Anyway it turns out we all lose!
Don't you all have Masters or PhD's to be working on? Please stop wasting my valuable time and energy with surveys and listserve attacks on each other. Grow up this is not the end all or be all of any fight. Enough crying about "Gene said this, Isaac said that." FUCKING GROW UP. All this energy and I bet it is getting no one involved any closer to finishing. It sounds like Joseph is the second coming of Che Guevara. Are you all that helpless that you can't do anything to help yourselves with out him? Too FUCKING BAD for you! Maybe you will always need someone to wipe your ass and fight your battles.
You know I was not even going to get involved. I just wanted to sit back and laugh at all of you for being so.... stupid. I guess I should have called you all when I was applying for grad school, boo hoo my scores are not high enough, my skin is too brown, my pussy hurts. Wah wah wah!! Well I got in with out you and I will probably finish without you. Go fight windmills all you want, and keep your nose out of my personal FUCKING business. AND what the FUCK does slavery have to do with this FUCKING INTRUSIVE survey anyway. Is this a Bush tactic? Boo hoo 911, 911, racial intolerance is everywhere!! He looked at me wrong, that white person is not being friendly! Sometimes people are just ASSHOLES!! Get over it!!
Damn. That was a profane outburst.
Could we try to be a little more mature in the future?
We have real issues to discuss.
On November 24, 2007 10:52 AM ‘concerned’ wrote “I have been a supporter of Joseph's, but the fact that we can't get any answers from him on these issues makes me want to sign the recall petition.”
A simple request for some answers. It went unanswered for 2 days.
Today we are hit with a poorly designed, highly skewed, shamelessly partisan ‘survey’. A survey that has no standing at Council. The Council’s directives, however, do. Or they used to until Joseph and company decided that any directive was racially motivated and therefore he could unilaterally ignore it. And try to hire his friends with our 35,000 dollars.
So questions go unanswered, the hiring of the office staff hasn’t advanced one step, the SRAC came in late (if anyone was denied I strongly encourage them to contact the SRAC Chair and ask about the re-read process – because it didn’t happen and Danny Hernandez single-handedly reading and scoring 30 or 40 or them is incredibly unprofessional and wrong), the ST is STILL OUT, 35,000+ dollars is still unbudgeted, and all they can do is play the race and fear card.
And then we get yet another blog post that is misleading and tries to smear Gene Henley.
“Race matters because Gene Henley mentioned in Daily Lobo article that GPSA was too busy with race and that it was one of the reasons he called for recall”
This is yet another distortion of the truth. From the Lobo article; “Henley said GPSA has spent too much time lately discussing resolutions that deal with the Iraq war, anti-discrimination and diversity.”I have not had one student come forward to me to say any of those issues are relevant to the graduate-professional student body," he said. "That is not the purview of student government."
He didn’t say that race doesn’t matter, Gene simply pointed out that the resolutions are not the purview of student government. Period. But that doesn’t stop the smear and distortions of his words.
And from a Lobo article no less!!! The same fine paper that Isaac has gone after for truth and accuracy in reporting. Nice double standard.
Much more importantly Gene’s personal opinions have nothing to do with the recall. The incompetence, lies, mismanagement, and betrayal of the graduate and professional student body’s trust is motivating the recall. Gene Henley is free to express his opinions. The recall petition makes no mention of those issues. Joseph, Isaac, Bahavana, and Danny have fought like hell to make it about race but it isn’t. And they have seen the petition and know better but they still persist with their vicious slander and race baiting politics.
“Survey matters because there are some council members who are not representing their departments; rather they are playing their personal politics.”
The survey does not matter because it is not a ‘survey’ in any sense of the word.
It is a push poll. Plain and simple.
And I think the graduate and professional community is wise enough to see it for what it is. No one with any grounding in stats or the sciences could have written this thing. It is a poorly written push poll that will not give any real data.
“Council members who are not representing their departments; rather they are playing their personal politics”
You mean like the reps from the Anthro department who wanted to pass the hate crimes legislation without any discussion??? No discussion? Really? Did they really survey the entire Anthro department on that decision? Doubt it. Does Joseph and represent the entire LAII? Word on the street is that he doesn’t. They are divided about him and his politics. And does Bahavana speak for the entire Indian community? Don’t think so. Word is that she was booted from their organization over differences in policy and direction. So all reps are injecting personal politics in one form or another. This is just another specious and misleading argument.
“Council discussed...wanted to vote against their fellow grad students who could gain assistantships”
What? The Council voted to raise monies to hire three-quarters time office assistant. This is not in dispute or even debatable. And to now try and divide us into people who ‘care for fellow graduate students versus those who don’t ‘would be laughable if it wasn’t so indicative of the contempt that this current administration has repeatedly shown contempt for the Council, its members, and its decisions.
This survey is the last straw. We ask for answers to questions and get hit with a survey.
They simply don’t get it. Nor do they even try. They don’t even pretend to care.
It is time we consider an impeachment proceeding. They are essentially daring us to pull the trigger so to speak.
GPSA business is not getting done (ST? Rereads and proper scoring on the SRACs? Hiring a staff person?), they have clearly lost the confidence and trust of a majority of the graduate and professional students. Everything is race race race and racism. And all we get are personal attacks, horseshit push poll surveys, and no movement on the Council’s mandates. And no answers.
If this doesn’t fall under impeachable offenses I don’t know what does.
Joseph – for the good of the GPSA please resign.
Or we will be forced to remove you. One way or another.
Resign.
Contrary to what some keep trying to paint as the issues, the recall has nothing to do with anything but the same questions we have now posed for almost a month.
Until the fundamental questions originally asked get answered, we will continue to pose the questions.
THE reasons for this recall are:
1. Fiscal mismanagement-
** Failure to complete SRAC and ST awards (within the six-week window established in the guidelines).
** Failure to account to the Council for status of the grant processes and ensure the timely distribution of GPSA grant funds.
2. Willful disregard for GPSA Council directives –
** Failure to hire office personnel as mandated by Council on March 4, 2006, April 29, 2007, and September 8, 2007. President Garcia has repeatedly stated that he has not followed through on these directives because he personally does not agree with them.
3. Misappropriation of GPSA Funds and lack of financial accountability or transparency –
** Unauthorized hiring and expenditures.
As of November 9, 2007, the Student Government Accounting Office reports that President Garcia has yet to account for three line items in the General Operating Budget, including salaries, stipends, and the President’s Expense Account. The unbudgeted amount in these accounts for the 2007-2008 year amounts to $39,000, in addition to deficit spending to pay the salaries of the office staff.
You may continue to obfuscate, but absent a response, all will draw their own conclusion.
Bravo Bravo. Entirely in agreement here.
"And I think the graduate and professional community is wise enough to see it for what it is. No one with any grounding in stats or the sciences could have written this thing. It is a poorly written push poll that will not give any real data."
May I add, being tech savvy isn't one of their strong points either. I was able to vote multiple times. Anyone can respond to the survey any number of times. Even for a push poll, hello... use some grey cells in the process. Urgh.. if you must play politics, at least make your defeat interesting. This is just proof of arrogance and stupidity that you sent out to every grad student out there. Nice!
Hahaha.. I hope they got to see my name and my race.
"And does Bahavana speak for the entire Indian community? Don’t think so. Word is that she was booted from their organization over differences in policy and direction."
Correct. I can vouch for that and provide documentary evidence if necessary. She resigned, (along with a crony) unable to face constant and unrelenting questioning of her actions by members. She is and was severely biased and pushed personal and organization-irrelevant agendas at the expense of basic duties expected of the position she held. An attitude it seems, that infects the current GPSA. Coincidence? Birds of a feather ?
"Joseph – for the good of the GPSA please resign.
Or we will be forced to remove you. One way or another.
Resign."
I second that.
Get the hell out.
Hi all:
I do not wish to enter into a long engagement here. I was notified of the above posts by friends.
Since the issue has been raised, let me provide you with facts. Roshan and 4 of his friends have and continue to dominate the India student listserv from its inception and make regular sexist comments. When I opposed such a pattern, the guys were incensed.
They wanted me to flame and be like them. But I wanted the place to be equitable and inclusive to all groups.
There is documentary evidence that people have posted stuff on ISACHAT that degrades Muslims. There are letters from people who have been ashamed of such postings who have written as such on the listserv. There is documentary evidence that most of the prolific posters are also Brahmins who look down on Dalit movements in India. I have documentary evidence which shows the postings have been deeply casteist.
There are only 5-7 posters on ISACHAT who write hate filled immature emails on the listserv. Only 2 of them live in Albuquerque. Others live in other parts of United States or in India. They are backward, right-wing, and deeply casteist.
My approach was to bring in equitable discussions, to which I received 150 hate emails in a period of 1 week in the month of may. Those emails plus emails outside the listserv which showed how these guys were ganging up to "kick my ass" is also available with me as well as neccessary authorities.
During the Turan Johnson case,
Roshan was furious that he could not be the leader (the alpha male) and gather as much support as I did by calling the right places at the right time. He was furious that he could not get media attention. He tried but the media did not accept his bytes. Not my fault. So he started saying that Turan Johnson case was a political move on my front.
Well, folks, I am a single mother with no savings and no possiblity of taking a loan. I lost a ton of money making phone calls to detectives, police chief, councillors, and hours meeting the Dean and VP and the adminstrative officers to gain support for the Indian students. I did it, because I cared for my people and could not bear the fact that they were getting hurt. I would do it again, if neccessary. It is not a political move, but a move of compassion. You can defame me as much as you want, but I stand by my integrity and sincerity of purpose.
I resigned because 20 of my Indian friends told me that fighting these guys was a waste of time and that I must put my energies in the direction that benefit majority. I resigned due to a group understanding of what was needed to be done at that point of time.
If any of you, wish to talk to me about this issue or any other, please feel free to email me at bhavana@unm.edu and we can discuss over a cup of coffee/tea.
Otherwise, feel free to decide for or against me. Hate me, accuse me, disparage me...you have the freedom. But please note, that you did not check your facts.
Bhavana
The paranoid delusions start again.
Go see a shrink.
Anonymous said
"If anyone was denied I strongly encourage them to contact the SRAC Chair and ask about the re-read process – because it didn’t happen
and Danny Hernandez single-handedly reading and scoring 30 or 40 or them is incredibly unprofessional and wrong."
Is any of this this true?
The post does leave me with the the following questions that should be easy to answer:
How many readers read for SRAC?
Did a honest reread process take place?
How many days occurred between getting the first round results and notification of the award? It seemed like an amazing turn around.
Did one person really read 40 of them?
And was this person part of the reread process?
Who were the first round readers and who did the rereads?
These are important questions because they address the integrity and fairness of the SRAC process.
Max Fitzpatrick, as the SRAC Chair, could you please address these questions?
Thanks!
Hello Bhavana,
Thank you for presenting your side of the story. I have spoken with Bhavana about this and other issues that face women (of any color). She is a strong, compassionate woman . . . if this subject interests you, I suggest that you take her up on her offer to meet for coffee--it was interesting to me, our discussion of women's issues, looking at cultural similarities/differences.
I believe that Bhavana has stepped above the fray, moved on, and I suggest that we do the same, moving back to the issue of the 3/4-time Office Assistant, who is yet to be hired.
Joseph, where are you in the process of hiring that person? Have you narrowed the applicant pool down to 3 or 4? Or, are you still ignoring the directive in hopes that Council will change it's mind?
Cheryl
The survey received by all Grad Students states the following:
"Unless graduate and professional students enact the assistantship legislation, the GPSA will hire a 30 hour/week Admin III. Below we have included the arguments in favor of the 30 hour/week Admin III approach and the counter arguments made in support of hiring graduate assistants for 40+ hours/week."
This statement is clearly biased. "Unless the grad and prof students enacts the assistantship legislation.." is implying that the real issue here is between the two choices.
In fact, the controversy over the non-hiring of the Admin III is SEPARATE from the assistantship legislation. The GPSA already enacted legislation to hire the 30 hour/week Admin III and it should have already been done. I agree that the hiring of graduate student assistants should be considered under normal Council procedures, but that is no reason to delay hiring the 30 hour/week Admin III that was already passed by Council.
It seems as though the GPSA president is trying to retroactively justify his refusal to hire the Admin III and instead hire grad assistants for the GPSA office. It implies that the GPSA president knows that what he is doing, hiring two grad student assistants and ignoring Council legislation to hire an Admin III, is wrong and unconstitutional. I would appreciate a response and explanation.
The following is an e-mail that I sent to the Student Activities Center, the owner of the list-serve on which the recent "survey" was sent. I encourage any other concerned students to express their dismay by e-mailing the UNM Student Activities Center, stulists@unm.edu
Student Activities Center,
All graduate and professional students received a link to a survey using the list-serve that is owned by the UNM Student Activities Center. I am deeply disturbed by the fact that a link to a non-official survey was sent out using a list-serve that is for critical information.
Students rely on these critical list-serves to filter out essential and non-essential information. This survey is obviously not appropriate for this list-serve.
Additionally, a survey that asks such personal information as your name, gender, age, ethnicity, and whether you are a graduate student is reprehensible and perhaps in violation of Institutional Review Board policies.
Most students I have spoken to did not respond to the survey, because they realized that it was inappropriate in asking for such personal information, and therefore was probably not officially sanctioned by the Student Activies Center. However, I wonder how many students divulged this very private information on this survey, not knowing that it was not officially sanctioned.
I would urge that a e-mail be sent to this same list-serve to clarify what the intention of the e-mail was, whether it was sanctioned by the Student Activities Center, and if it was not, warning students not to respond to it because it inappropriately asks and even requires that students identify very private demographic information, including their name.
Thank you,
Kathryn Frietze
PhD Student
Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program
I hate to post three times in a row. The following is in response to the recent post to the GPSA list-serve by the GPSA President:
My questions:
1. Why was the survey not posted to the GPSA blog or the GPSA-list-serve?
2. Did you have authorization from the Student Activities Center (the owner of the list-serve)to post this survey?
3. Why was it necessary to ask for personally identifiable information such as name, gender, ethnicity, age, and student status?
I believe this survey was in violation of the University Student Policies regarding acceptable computer use for the following reasons:
1. The e-mail was sent on an official University of New Mexico list-serve maintained by the Student Activities Center, and includes a foot note that indicates that the list-serve is for critical information only. The use of this list-serve implies that the e-mail was sanctioned by the Student Activities Center and the University of New Mexico, so students were highly likely to read and respond to this e-mail and its contents. This makes the e-mail different than mere junk-mail or non-essential surveys often posted on other UNM list-serves.
2. The e-mail included a link to a survey which asked for students’ opinions on a Graduate and Professional Student Association issue, but required that students include their name, age, ethnicity, gender, and student status in order to submit the survey. The UNM Student Policies on “Acceptable Computer Use”, section 2.2 Misuse of Computing Services states that “…examples of misuse include…invading the privacy rights of anyone”.
3. The e-mail was sent to a list-serve with limited posting-access and maintained by the Student Activities Center. If the Student Activities Center did not authorize the use of the list-serve to post this e-mail, then the poster is in violation of The UNM Student Policies on “Acceptable Compute Use”, section 2.2 Misuse of Computing Services, which states that “…examples of misuse include…using systems for unauthorized access”.
Violation of UNM Student Policies should be added to the list of reasons for recalling the GPSA President.
Kathryn,
Good points!
Not to worry though . . . some students who were on the fence about the recall were tipped to the recall side by this "survey." They were especially upset about the personal information asked for in the survey.
We all know that this was a last-ditch effort by an administration that has no valid answers to the Recall points (except "I don't agree with Council"), to muddy the waters.
Gee Joe, it doesn't sound like they bought your spinjob. How about a real answer.
Ever see that movie The Run Down" with The Rock?
"Option A, you can own up to bad stuff you have pulled and resign"
"Option B, everybody makes you own up and then you are forced to leave."
Just saying the writing on the wall looks to be in bright red ink and must be getting kind of hard to ignore.
In response to the GPSA-L post from Ivan:
There is no such thing as treason in the GPSA Constitution. There is however such a thing as a Recall.
The word treason has now been added to the mix.
Allow me to add the words deception, spin, and liar.
Joseph Garcia, on 11/28 the GPSA-L, wrote that “Given that the GPSA Council created the staff position with only nine voting members remaining after a long meeting, I felt that I have a need, and the right, to hear from the people I represent”.
He is taking great liberties with the truth. Putting out just a fraction of the truth to support his attempt to subvert the Council’s informed and lengthy deliberations, decisions, and binding votes.
The truth of the matter was that “The decision to hire an office staff originally came out of the strategic planning that the GPSA undertook in spring 2006. It was a series of 4 meetings, open and broadcast to everyone to formulate plans to address the needs of our community. Then, it was introduced and discussed at least two (if not three) meetings before voted upon. The discussion at the March meeting was lengthy, representatives were given the opportunity to consult with their constituents and vote.
Furthermore, in between the votes in spring 2006 and spring 2007, several reports were made to Council as to the status of the hiring. Council was kept abreast of the budgeting decisions and the efforts of the eboard to come up with a workable budget. This process was not kept secret and no one came to Council with alternatives during the entire 06-07 session. The discussion last April was at least 1.5 hours long. Council reaffirmed the decision of the previous year.
(From the GPSA-L on 11/28 in response to Joesph's post)
Joseph, either you are engaging in selective recall and deception or you are a liar.
I am now inclined to believe the latter.
You are a pathetic liar.
For the good of the GPSA - resign.
Now
As a rep during the time period when the office staff question was decided, I can attest that there was lots of discussion and time given for reps to go back to their departments and get their feedback. There were and are pros and cons to all the hiring plans that were brought up and a great deal of discussion was generated. It was also voted on 3 times, not just once in a last ditch effort at the end of a long meeting. Joseph’s email is absolutely misrepresenting the situation. Fees were raised to hire an assistant. As reps at the time we took the discussion very seriously and talked to our departments and brought back their concerns and ideas to council. The fact that all this discussion and work has been unilaterally ignored simply because the GPSA president did not personally agree with the decision is a mockery of our student government. A president that refuses to follow a directive of council is a valid and constitutional reason for a recall folks. It’s only “treason” if we had voted to throw out our constitution and create a GPSA dictatorship. I sure don’t remember voting that in. But I do remember the hours and the time spent deliberating over the office staff question. For Joseph to represent the situation as a one time last minute vote is insulting to everyone who has worked so hard to represent their constituents on council for the past few years. I’m appalled.
From the GPSA-L list. I am not the author but received this email via GPSA-L and believe it asks good questions that Joseph Garcia, as the one who authorized the survey, must answer.
Who was the author or who were the authors of the GPSA Office Staff Survey?
The Survey Monkey site requires registration. The 'data' collected from the 'survey' is being stored in a registered account.
Who owns the account?
And who has access to that account?
Our personal data is now available to which GPSA Office employees?
Is that information secure?
As members of the graduate and professional community who have answered this survey we have a right to know the answers to these questions.
Joseph Garcia – as the President of the GPSA this is a legitimate inquiry. Please answer these questions.
I voted for you.
I support you. But this is a concern for me.
I would appreciate answers.
This is my favorite crazy bite out of the blog so far:
"GPSA has, and is, becoming a huge governmental hegemonic beast."
I am going to start peppering my speech with "huge governmental hegemonic beast."
good to see a speech palette so easily increased.
I suppose the Recall Committee was disappointed by the show of support for Joseph--an overwhelming Vote of Confidence to begin the meeting--and the lack of fireworks--except when one of their leaders screamed a loud obscenity mid-meeting at another member to the shock of all present. Make 'em proud Gene!
"STOP BEING SO GOD DAMN RUDE!!!"
Gene, that was outstanding, way to let him have it for bing impolite. Jumping up out of your seat was a great way to emphasized your displeasure with his discourteous behavior.
Let us all follow Gene's lead and stand in support of his efforts to end impertinent actions in the Council.
Clearly the Recall Committee is the voice of Goddamn reason.
I was an undecided grad student observer to the December 1 meeting. It is now really obvious to me who has the good of the grads in mind. The people who were stalling,rudely cross examining, and refusing to vote on funding graduate students were the very people who read the recall announcement and even later screamed cuss words. Wow. It was a long morning but I am glad I went because I would have never believed the level of hostility that was coming from those representatives.
Once again we see an attack launched on only one party in a dispute and NO critical analysis or evaluation offered in regards to the other party namely Isaac Padilla. Gene’s inappropriate outburst, which he later publicly apologized for, was in response to the content (or lack thereof) of Isaac’s presentation as Finance Chair and his adherence to (or willful disregard) of the turn taking rules that are imposed on all members of Council.
If you are going to attack one Council member for his actions then I would appreciate the same critical evaluation and analysis of the other individual involved in the dispute
Lets me ask you the following questions.
Do you feel Isaac Padilla himself comported with Council’s well established discourse and turn taking rules?
Did Isaac Padilla recognize the authority of the Council Chair to run the meeting according to Roberts Rules of Order by speaking within his allotted time, address the questions that were asked of him as the Finance Chair, and respect the Council Chair’s right and role, as the duly elected Chair, to either limit discourse or ask that the responses be germane to the questions asked by fellow Council members?
Do you feel that Isaac Padilla, in his capacity as the Finance Chair, presented a report that addressed the overall financial state of GPSA, the current operating budget as of Dec 1, 2007, and provided an accurate picture of the financial expenditures (debts, balances outstanding etc.) of the GPSA? In other words, are you satisfied, by his report, that you have a reasonable understanding as to the financial health and status of the GPSA as a graduate student organization? If so, why?
We know that Gene was disrespectful of Isaac and he apologized for his outburst.
Was Isaac respectful of Gene?
Was Isaac behavior respectful of the Council Chair and the larger Council body?
How would you characterize Isaac’s role in this affair?
Shouldn’t any blame be directed at both parties?
The council chair was incapable of running the meeting according to the rules of order. In fact, she allowed the recallers to talk over others, yell over others, cross examine other without being recognized to speak, scream obscenities, and when the finance chair attempted to respond to the hostile questions asked, the council chair stomped across the room and stood in front of him to stop him from talking, all while yelling his name repeatedly. The council chair did not act in accordance with any rules of order I've ever witnessed.
At another time, when asked questions about her own report, she refused to answer--pertinent questions here, about the running of the office and the obviously missing spirit of collaboration in the office--again she shut down the speaker by repeating his name loudly, then telling him she would talk to him outside during the break. (Not to have her response public and on record?)
The so-called rules of order were differentially applied, in a sadly obvious manner and I hope that the Lobo will release the full tape of the meeting. The defense of such shameless hostility should not surprise me, but, really, it does.
First and most importantly, my outburst was rude and discourteous. I publicly apologized for my outburst at the meeting.
i was embarrassed by my lack of control. My frustration stemmed from listening to a very good and lengthy Finance Committee Report that while informative about the Student Fee Review Board had absolutely nothing to do with GPSA Finances -which by the way we still have yet to receive a report.
My frustration was that we have so little time to deal with GPSA business, I would prefer that said business be held. For those with an interest in SFRB - hold a separate meeting.
Issac is correct that fees are a much bigger portion of a student's expenses - but he certainly doesn't speak for all grad students regarding his fanatical opposition to athletics.
Re:the vote of confidence I find that the true vote of confidence will be the recall vote.
I look forward to the vote which must be held no later than February 4th.
So maybe someone can discuss if there is an option for removing the finance chair (Isaac Padilla) from office. During the entire meeting, he was very disrespectful to people (especially those who aren't his buddies I assume). He presented irrelevant things and could not answer any questions asked about the budget, etc. by Buckner. I don't think Isaac is doing his job (either), but is the most arrogant person at that.
If anyone has a thought on how to get him out of office I am looking forward to your posts...
And to the person stating that the recall supporters were the rude ones, I recall everybody being very rude, no matter what cause they supported...
Dear "accountability said"
Personal questions in regards to her relationship with Joseph are so inappropriate and wrong.
Wrong to ask either Melanie or Joseph. Wrong to ask anyone at Council. Period.
And notice when Ivan was asked if he would ask Joseph the same question he immediately shut up.
That line of inquiry was disgusting and shouldn’t have been allowed to even begin. It was a thinly disguised pointed slanderous one sided cheap shot that was so completely inappropriate it is sick.
How dare you justify the asking of those questions at Council?
And in case you didn’t notice, Ivan, the speaker in question, a) persisted rudely in repeatedly asking his questions / personal attack and b) is visually impaired so Melanie’s nonverbal attempts to try and bring closure to the questions went unrecognized.
She repeated his name three times in a loud voice to regain the floor and end the harassment.
Is this inappropriate? Ivan violates basic decorum and then refuses to yield the floor after being asked repeated to do so? I would think that repeating his name three times in a loud voice, to gain his attention, was a legitimate and appropriate move. She tried to use proximity to the speaker and other non verbal cues to ask Ivan to stop. A common practice for sighted speakers but not appropriate in this context. Regardless, Ivan rudely ignored her. And you have the audacity to call her on the exchange? Ivan is an asshole but Melanie is wrong? How does that work?
And then given the personal nature of his attack and line of inquiry Melanie did the right thing by taking it out of the public space and speaking to his personally and privately during the break. Not to have her response public and on record. You are unbelievable. I can only assume that she addressed his questions in a private and respectful manner. The intent of that question was to publicly humiliate and hurt. That had to be the meanest thing I have ever seen at Council. Kudos to Mel for dealing with it so well.
You’ve repeatedly called her a racist, you’ve challenged her honesty and integrity, questioned her values and principles, slandered her up and down the street, accused her of bias and prejudice, declared that she is part of a ‘lynch mob’, and then have the nerve to challenge her right, as a self respecting woman, who is determined to maintain some sense of dignity and self worth in spite of your accusations, to not answer biased personal questions that are only designed to inflame and hurt?
You are despicable.
Issac must not have anything to hide because he has requested an audit by the University. If there was theft he would be a fool make such a request. He has also asked for an investigation of the distribution of grants, I wonder if past GPSA officials fear the investigation. I think all past and present board members need to let us know the amount of money they have received. The Chair and the past President should be the first. If they refuse to give us this information then it would appear they have misappropriated funds and now they are hiding their ill-gotten rewards.
Do you think they gave grants to their friends?
I welcome an audit by SGAO.
I also look forward to them providing us with a budget status since for the past five months our Finance Chair has been unable to do so.
BTW, I have never applied for much less received any grants from GPSA.
Please re-read all of my posts. I've never accused the Council Chair of any of the things listed below. I attended the meeting and shared my reflections on the loss of control of the meeting. Please be respectful and not accuse me of being malicious when I have not been. I wish you luck in going forward with GPSA as it seems you think the worst of someone you have never met and accuse me of things I have never written. Please reflect on your accusations, below:
Anonymous said "You’ve repeatedly called her a racist, you’ve challenged her honesty and integrity, questioned her values and principles, slandered her up and down the street, accused her of bias and prejudice, declared that she is part of a ‘lynch mob’, and then have the nerve to challenge her right, as a self respecting woman, who is determined to maintain some sense of dignity and self worth in spite of your accusations, to not answer biased personal questions that are only designed to inflame and hurt?"
You are despicable.
“I attended the meeting and shared my reflections on the loss of control of the meeting. Please be respectful and not accuse me of being malicious when I have not been. I wish you luck in going forward with GPSA as it seems you
think the worst of someone you have never met and accuse me of things I have never written”
Really.
I encourage everyone to reread accountability’s post on December 3, 2007 2:19 PM. It is hardly an example of objective reporting or free from personal bias. “Stomping across the room” and “such shameless hostility” is so loaded and undermines your argument.
I ask you to please be respectful to this blog community and not pretend to be unbiased or not malicious in your reflections of events.
Your intent was malicious, it is part of a concerted attack on the integrity and character of the Council Chair, and I stand by my charge. You, and others like you, who in the past year have called Melanie Armstrong a racist, who have challenged her honesty and integrity, questioned her values and principles, slandered her up and down the street, accused her of bias and prejudice, declared that she is part of a ‘lynch mob’, and then had the nerve to challenge her right, as a self respecting woman, who is determined to maintain some sense of dignity and self worth in spite of your accusations, to not answer biased personal questions that are only designed to inflame and hurt are both shameless and despicable. Period.
Don’t insult us by your fake objectivity. I only think of the worst of someone when they engage in the politics of personal destruction and slander. And then try to claim otherwise.
Debbie Morris is not a person I would trust to do an audit because she is not a neutral person. I was told the audit will be done by an independent third party that has no association with GPSA. Debbie is incapable of conducting herself in a fair and impartial manor. When this situation started she was only too eager to schedule an election before the proper procedure had been followed. She is a person I do not trust as she has violated her roll as an advisor and instead became an advocate.
Yeah Debbie's objectivity should be challenged....because anonymous is clearly an objective person themselves! so objective in fact that can't even remember their name when they attack people.
Round 2 with anonymous. See my comment on the W vs. V topic.
anonymous, noone has said that there has been theft at the GPSA. The point of the recall effort is that Joseph has not followed repeated calls by Council to spend our funds in a particular manner, and has left large chunks of the office budget deliberately unbudgeted to avoid having to say why.
The word 'theft' has never been spoken, except as a straw man argument by folks like yourself. It's easy to say "aha, you're accusing Joseph (or anyone else) of theft" as an insincere rallying statement.
I'd love to see an investigation of the distribution of grants (SRAC, ST) this fall, considering no one has done the job right, barring GRD which hasn't started yet. Compare it to the previous three years, and look at the structures in place in the past that helped to ensure fairness in scoring. Were these followed this fall? Did a single person this fall read almost all of the SRAC grants, in direct contradiction to the grant guidelines?
Why did Joseph have to do the ST chair's job for him, and send out emails, not letters in the mail, the day before Council, 3-4 weeks late, for only 14 applications?
When were the ST applications permanently filed in the GPSA office? Why have the main applications, with private student information, not been in the office, under lock and key, for 9 consecutive weeks? I thought we straightened this out with GRD 2 years ago. Has anyone met the ST chair? Why doesn't he show up?
If you're referring to the stipends received by committee chairs, I'd be intrigued to see what has happened this past year and a half. Who got how much? When did chairs get their stipends? Did they have to force Joseph to give them out? For my years, everything went by the book. The largest committee chair stipend was $500/term (SRAC), and the rest were less, based upon workload. This was set on precedent from previous years. The GRD committee chair stipend was significantly more, but exactly according to the Constitution. It was also decreased my second year, after Council rewrote the GRD bylaws.
As to salaries, ask SGAO for pay stubs. I still have mine; I'd be happy to show them to you. My salary, as Joseph's, was based upon the average 0.5 FTE TA salary, as determined by OGS. There's no way to fake that. The same goes for the Council Chair.
I've two questions for an audit of the GPSA finances:
"Has Joseph hired students in direct contradiction of Council's continued vote to hire office staff?"
"Has our Finance Chair, Isaac Padilla, who is in charge of watching our accounts, had any clue as to the expenditures of our funds?"
The point of the recall is not about theft, and no one has said so. The point of the recall is that Joseph has continually refused to do what he should have done, what he said he was going to do and what he was told to do.
Again, I'd be happy to strike up a conversation with you regarding these issues, whomever you are. If you want to challenge me in public, with your real name on a statement or question, I'm happy to answer.
Joseph seems unwilling to do the same.
Cheers,
Buckner
> Anonymous said...
Issac must not have anything to hide because he has requested an audit by the University. If there was theft he would be a fool make such a request. He has also asked for an investigation of the distribution of grants, I wonder if past GPSA officials fear the investigation. I think all past and present board members need to let us know the amount of money they have received. The Chair and the past President should be the first. If they refuse to give us this information then it would appear they have misappropriated funds and now they are hiding their ill-gotten rewards.
December 4, 2007 5:06 PM
The Audit Will Tell Us the Truth said...
Do you think they gave grants to their friends?
December 4, 2007 5:46 PM
Issac probably asked for an audit to finally get some help figuring out how to put together the GPSA budget everyone's been asking for. At least he’s finally getting help, maybe we’ll get to see a budget before the end of the school year. Nine months to put together an organization’s budget, you’d think as grad students we could find a finance chair who was a bit more competent.
We were told that we must keep Joseph in office because of his Chairmanship of the SFRB and the fact that the undergrads outnumber us 4:3. So what does Joseph do? Immediately antagonizes them by acting unilaterally because “he did what was best” and “the hearing schedule is up to him because he is the chairman”. Good work President Garcia. Now they will really want to listen to graduate and professional student opinions and concerns. Thank God we have Isaac, the voice of reason and moderation on all things SFRB, representing us. He should be able to mediate a compromise. Our interests are in good hand. Good work gentlemen.
Daily Lobo article 12/5/07
Fee board clashes over chair's actions
By: Ashleigh Sanchez
Daily Lobo
There is tension on the Student Fee Review Board between the presidents of UNM's student governments.
ASUNM President Ashley Fate said GPSA President Joseph Garcia scheduled funding-request hearings without getting approval from the board.
But Garcia said he doesn't need its approval to set the hearing dates because he is the board's chairman.
The board holds hearings near the beginning of the spring semester every year for campus organizations and departments to request funding.
The board makes recommendations to the University for how about $8 million of student fees should be allocated.
Fate said the board agreed to have campus organizations request a hearing date on their funding applications.
"We agreed to put check boxes and proposed dates, both weekend and weekday, to find out what was best for the groups," she said.
Garcia scheduled the hearings for Tuesday,
Jan. 22, the first day of the spring semester, and Tuesday, Feb. 1.
Garcia said he did what was best.
"I understand she's upset," he said. "It's hard for people to get away from their families on weekends. My main goal has always been to increase student involvement."
Fate said holding the hearings on weekdays - especially the first day of classes - burdens students because they must choose between the hearing and their classes.
"This is the student review board, and students' classes come first," she said. "We're open to finding a compromise, but he went totally against what the board had agreed to do."
Garcia said the hearing schedule is up to him because he is the chairman, and he met with the board several times to discuss the issue.
Fate said the hearings are
usually held before the spring
semester starts. They were on weekends last year, she said.
She said that in the past, the chairperson has brought proposed dates to the board, which then set the schedule.
A recall petition for Garcia's presidency was presented to GPSA on Saturday. He said the tension on the review board is similar to what he experienced in GPSA.
"People are trying to remove me because of things that happened in the past," he said. "Now, the board can't move forward because we're stuck in the way things have traditionally been done."
Fate said Garcia should not have acted without the board's consent.
"Really, the schedule isn't the issue," she said. "The issue is the butting heads. I've told Joe that we need to find a way past this and work together."
The presidents of GPSA and ASUNM chair the board in alternating two-year periods.
If Garcia is removed, there is no protocol for who would be chairperson.
"We don't know what will happen," said Debbie Morris, director of the Student Activities Center. "There's no precedent. It's never happened before."
Garcia said it's unlikely he will be removed as president of GPSA.
Morris said the board will work out the schedule, but it's not going to be perfect.
"There isn't going to be a good time for these," she said. "People are busy on the weekends and working or at school on the weekdays."
© Copyright 2007 Daily Lobo
Post a Comment