Monday, November 12, 2007

Status of Office Staff

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

242 comments:

1 – 200 of 242   Newer›   Newest»
Unknown said...

Dear Joseph,

Thanks for clarifying what has been going on with the hire. Indeed there has been a lot of buzz about why the position hasn't been filled for a year and a half!

After reading your e-mail, I was left with a few questions. Perhaps you or someone else can speak to them, as they may just be a result of my not understanding rules and regulations of GPSA?

1) I don't understand why the position was not included in last year's budget if the council voted to create the position and to raise student fees.
a) once the budget is made, is there no way to amend it?
b) shouldn't the student fees have been returned, or at least not charged (the following semesters), once someone realized that those funds would not be able to be used for the reason they were charged?
c) even if the hire could not have been made last year, when was the first term that the hire could have technically been made? Summer 2007? Fall 2007?
d) why hadn't the job description begun to be written before summer if it was something that was anticipated well in advance? We can all appreciate the slowness of UNM bureaucracy, but with planning, it seems like it could have gone more smoothly.

2)It is clear from your e-mail that you did not intentionally hire close friends to fill positions in GPSA and it is understandable that people become close after working closely. Even if you had hired friends on purpose, I would argue that most people probably do that! You want to work with people that you know you will get along with! However, once people become friends, it can be particularly challenging to assume a leadership role above them when there are problems.
a)I think the real issue that people are seeing is that jobs are not getting done in a timely fashion and people are being paid to do them.
b) Specifically, the job description was not completed on time (which you spoke to), SRAC awards have not been announced, and ST awards were not announced (and although it was posted on the website, a due date announcement was not made).
c) The SRAC chair (a paid position) is the same person who was given the job description task (a 20 to 30 hour work study position?).
d) For the record, I personally like everyone involved in these issues (no personal vendettas here, really!).

3)It can be overwhelming to be president of all of the graduate students and try to administer the office.
a) isn't this all the more reason to hire someone (as voted on in the past) so that the responsibility of oversight falls to Debbie Morris (our advisor) instead of an extra task for the President?
b)On the other hand, I do appreciate the fact that Joseph is trying to help support graduate students by offering the position as assistantships.
c) While I know we all appreciated the office being well staffed and running relatively smoothly, I would hope that if we do go with assistantships, then the job will be widely offered to all graduate students, especially those who do not have many opportunities for funding.
d) If it is not offered as an assistantship, could we give priority to spouses of international students? The need for helping this population was expressed recently in a resolution.

Thank you!

Lisa Bryant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa Bryant said...

In response to Bhavana's email on the listserve . . .

I think that if someone wants to remain anonymous that is their prerogative. If it were Melanie, there are many reasons she may want to do so. One could be that she would not want to use her position as chair to appear influential - a neutral party if you will. Another could be that her position in the office gives her access to confidential information and often those posts come with a level of responsibility and respect for the position that should not be used for petty personal attacks.

We protect anonymous sources in the media, look at the anger that arose when Valerie Plame was ousted by an insider. We should protect and respect anonymity in our institution as well. Sometimes it is only when a source can remain anonymous that the truth can be revealed (Watergate, Tobacco companies, Ford Motor Company Pinto explosions, etc). This list of the value of anonymity goes on and on, so let's concentrate on the matter at hand and refrain from the compulsion to start a witch-hunt.

Lisa Bryant
lbryant@unm.edu

Anonymous said...

If Mel wants to remain anonymous that is her perogative....Let me point out that her concerns or complaints about Garcia and the GPSA are neither novel nor new....There is a cadre of complaints and concerns very similar to her's across the street to the North....Many people are not satisfied with job he is doing or the direction of GPSA of late. ~Blair

Shannon McCoy-Hayes said...

Dear all,

Let's keep the issue in mind. At this point the issue is that there may have been directives made to the President by the council which have not been carried through. In any other business or organization, if a task is not carried through, there are consequences.

In this case the consequence is that the President is being asked to explain the reason why GPSA council directives have not been accomplished.

In our democratic system we have several unalienable rights, one of which has always been the ability to critique our leadership. President Garcia is a public servent. He serves at the will of the the GPSA who are represented by our representatives and council members.

However at this point, rather than clogging all of our inboxes with unessesary and unuseful soliloquies that may or may not be accurate, it appears time that the council call an "audit" of the Presidents' fullfilment of their directives.


If our council and representatives have questions regarding the Presidents' performance of his assigned tasks then they should question him about them.
President Garcia should as well, be given the opportunity to respond to councils' queries.

We must strive to retain our collective rights, as well as our dignity. Let us proceed with fairness and legality.

Cheryl said...

This conversation is going nowhere and deflecting the important issue of whether or not Joseph complied with Council directives, which, to my knowledge, he has not. Addition to my constituents wanting the fees back that they paid for this Office Assistant that has, to-date, still not been hired (after a year and a half of the original directive), they are still up-in-arms about not knowing if they have SRAC or ST funding . . . they expected to be notified within the 6 weeks of application as stated on the GPSA website. I explained to them that it was noted in the Council meeting that the readers did not do their job within the time they were alloted and that applicants would be notified by Friday, Nov 9, which, to my knowledge, has still not happened.
Joseph himself stated in his e-mail that he has not been affective in managing the office staff . . . I think it is time to turn this job over to someone who can.
I have nothing personal against Joseph, I simply want to do my job as a Council Representative and I think/feel as if he is making it harder than it needs to be,
Cheryl Bryan
Psychology Department

Anonymous said...

This "discussion" has been a personal attack on Joseph. It is obvious that Melanie and others have it out for him for a variety of reasons, most of which are unfair. The reasons that may be more fair - are also questionable. If you look hard enough, - none of us can stand up to the scrutiny of our every move. One someone is determined to find another lacking, - that lack will be found.

Perhaps we would be better served by council reps if they SUPPORTED Joseph AND the rest us and stopped stabbing at each other.

It is time to STOP the personal attacks.

Roxanna

Anonymous said...

Under the GPSA Constitution Article IV Section F. 2. a recall is an entirely legal and fair way to address an unpopular president. So with roughly 150 signatures this is perfectly legtimate answer to people's unrest. So we have a Gray Davis, where is the Arnold Schwarzenegger? I mean really with 22k in perks you would think Garcia could at least do enough to keep from getting recalled....Right? he should be in no danger....I mean there is no way that there are 145 disgruntled Graduate and Professional Students.

Anonymous said...

"Under the GPSA Constitution Article IV Section F. 2. a recall is an entirely legal and fair way to address an unpopular president."

If we're going to go that route, - lets recall the entire council. Its clear none of them are doing their job.

Anonymous said...

"I have nothing personal against Joseph, I simply want to do my job as a Council Representative and I think/feel as if he is making it harder than it needs to be,
Cheryl Bryan
Psychology Department"

Cheryl, It is obvious you have a great deal against Joseph as you have never supported him on a single issue to date. We all know how bureaucracy can slow things to a standstill so I fully accept the explanation regarding the red tape in hiring an admin assistant.

Cheryl, you do not support Joseph, - in anything. Yet, you will not work to help out. You just stand and criticize.

What is really going on here? Why are you so against Joseph?? Seems there must be more to the story.

Perhaps it is you who need to step down.

Geronimo Gallegos

Anonymous said...

So basically, don't disagree with the king? Is that what you are saying? I fully support Cheryl, I can't name one good thing that GPSA has done this semester, but I have a laundry list of things they have done that shows to be nothing more than a waste of the outrageous stipends we are paying for!

Is Geronimo a law student?

Anonymous said...

Under GPSA Article V. Section F. 6. a council chairperson may be recalled by a motion at regular GPSA Council meeting. Requires a 2/3 affirmative Council vote at the next meeting.

Anonymous said...

"Is Geronimo a law student?"

At least he had the class to sign his name.

Lisa

(by the way, - why are we use this blogger system? It really sucks.)

Anonymous said...

The email listserve rules are totally ambiguous. Alonzo that is all fine and good that you interpret it one way and I interpret it the other.....Just a hint though, I don't think it really matters since there are no list serve police and no if you violate the purpose you will be removed. So people should continue to use the list as much as they want. They can't take you off the list that is governed by ambiguous rules. That would be against due process and unconstitutional...lol. ~Blair

Anonymous said...

Are only law students allowed to post to this blog?

Anonymous said...

Look all of you ramble rousers, just need to get over yourselves. Joseph is a wonderful guy, that is doing great things for our community. Just because he does so in a manner that may break a few rules, doesn't negate the positive change he is effecting in our community. He is standing up for the Latino community and minorities and the ends justify the means. So get over it. He is in charge and there is little you can do about it!!!! -R.T.Rumble

Anonymous said...

Look all of you ramble rousers, just need to get over yourselves. Joseph is a wonderful guy, that is doing great things for our community. Just because he does so in a manner that may break a few rules, doesn't negate the positive change he is effecting in our community. He is standing up for the Latino community and minorities and the ends justify the means. So get over it. He is in charge and there is little you can do about it!!!! -R.T.Rumble

Unknown said...

Wow. So no one has responded to my post! It was the first one... the one that was posted while everyone was busy fighting on the listserv. Was all the nonsense more important? If anyone wants to talk about the real issues and think about ways to make improvements, then I will look forward to hearing from you!

Anonymous said...

"Ten persons today have signed off or requested to be removed from the listserv, please use the GPSA Blog or Mel and I will be forced to moderate posts."

More abuse of power, now the despot wants to obstruct freedom of speech

Alonzo Vera said...

I've checked, and the list has "only" 320 subscribers. Shouldn't it be a lot bigger?.
Also, how does one create a new thread on this blog. Can somebody help with that?

Unknown said...

Not an obstruction of freedom of speech! People have the right to want to get the information from GPSA that they signed up to receive without all of the immature banter.

We have this blog! If you have posted to it then you know that you can get e-mail updates when others post... gee, it's kind of like a listserv. Those who don't want to actually post, but prefer to "be amused" by the arguing can even subscribe to the blog. The listserv can still be used to announce that a new discussion topic has been started on the blog, but that should really be the end of it.

It is great that everyone is so enthusiastic about the issues, but let's keep the others out of it so they can continue to enjoy the benefits of being on the GPSA listserv. So if we are done with personal attacks, can we please move forward and talk about the real issues?

Jason A.Thomas said...

This is a real interesting conversation (maybe conversation is not the right word) going on. Discourse is the right of people and laid out by the US Constitution.

It seems unsettling that an anonymous posting was attributed to any particular person, and it very worrying that has led to personal attacks. It reminds me of what young children do, and it really does not prove or disprove anything.

I could also participate in such action but I do not feel it would further any kind of competent discussion. It would only take away any possibility of discussing the issues addressed in Ilanit's original post. If you would like to further that thread please start another post to do so.

Ilanit's original posting was asking questions to Joseph Garcia about his position regarding specific issues. This is a public forum where his answers to these questions could go a long way in demonstrating that his actions are justified. Although not answering also may pose some problems in that his answers may not be what some Graduate Students want to hear.

There was another anonymous posting that I will quote

Look all of you ramble rousers, just need to get over yourselves. Joseph is a wonderful guy, that is doing great things for our community. Just because he does so in a manner that may break a few rules, doesn't negate the positive change he is effecting in our community. He is standing up for the Latino community and minorities and the ends justify the means. So get over it. He is in charge and there is little you can do about it!!!! -R.T.Rumble

Wow, is that the same argument used by the Bush administration to justify what some consider torture. I hope that whomever is trying to support Joseph stops. They seem to be only hurting his position.

Also, on this blog there seems to be an almost immediate accusation of racism by someone in this (for hope of turning this into one) discussion. The original posting and even the original posting by Joseph make no mention of anything having to do with the age, ancestry, national origin, color, race, gender identity, medical condition, mental or physical disability, religion, sex, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, spousal affiliation, and veteran status. So I would like to see some (hopefully) discussion about the original questions asked and less about issues that have not been addresed.

To be clear, my motivations are to ask "Is it important to follow the guidelines and rules that govern the GPSA?" I personally agree that providing opportunities for further funding outside of departments is am important issue. I just would like to know that we still participate in a process that is as democratic and representative as possible. All I would like is to have the opportunity to be heard, and I will do my best to listen to others even if I may disagree with them. That seems only fair.

I welcome anyone who would like to attempt to convince me of anything. Just give me the same opportunity.

Jason Thomas
Biology Department Rep.

P.S. Apologies about being listed as the Programs (AdHoc). This was the position I held previously, and my gmail account is currently tied to this label. As soon as I figure out how to change it I will.

Anonymous said...

I honestly know very little beyond what has been discussed thus far concerning these bureaucratic affairs taking place. However, I would very much like to hear more of why the issue is such an important one. I know that bureaucracies are slow moving and that often money is needed up front before it can be actually spent. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that graduate students would need to pay for an office assistant in advance of actually acquiring one. I for one do not mind paying in advance for the sake of all even if I were to graduate next year.

I believe that if there is a problem with the handling of this issue, it falls on the heads of the entire council, not a single individual. However, if an individual is to blame, that individual should be shown due respect and given an opportunity to defend/explain his or her actions. I would hope I would be given such respect if I was in such a position and therefore wish to extend that respect to others. Following such protocal also shows respect for and seeks to maintain a system of checks and balances with a sense of maturity and humanity.

I think Ilanit's questions are good ones and I look forward to hearing President Garcia's responses either over the blog or in a special meeting with council and representatives to discuss these matters. I also think the suggestion of an assistanship is a very good one that I would easily support.

I would like to simply add that I have been at UNM for 2.5 years now and never before this semester have I seen the GPSA do anything useful for our immediate academic community nor our greater NM community. I chose to become involved now because I believe strongly in the voice of educated folks to make the necessary changes to society from within the system. I believe that the actions and resolutions proposed by the GPSA in the past few months have shown a great degree of responsibility for the communities that we belong to and I hope that such a commitment continues. For these reasons, I applaud the GPSA and President Garcia for their critical and important efforts.

Anonymous said...

What exactly has the GPSA done in the last 2.5 years? I have been here the same amount of time and seen nothing done that was good. The agrument offered was that this semester they finally did something right. I would like to ask what exactly that it is that they did right?

The Iraq resolution? Whether or not you are agree with that political statment offered by the GPSA, what can you say that it does for us as graduate students? Promote awareness, some how show responsibility to our community? How exactly does that Resolution accomplish that. Does that statement really reflect GPSA student body as whole. I suppose we say that as representative body the little slice that is GPSA voting on resolution reflects the majority of students, but even if it does. So what? What did it accomplish.

What about the Anti-hate speech task force? Did that really accomplish much except inflaming the student population? What I read in the minutes of one of those meetings were things "such as lets get creative with law" hardly what I assume most graduate students would want a "student body" doing. Not really in the qualifications for that body either is it? I would feel uncomfortable with a group of student who were trained in the law (say for instance law students)to get creative with the law much less a student body!

How about this required diversity training stuff. I still never heard a clear answer as to the level of GPSA involvment but lets think about that for a second. What that concept proposes to do is take an individual who is already 22+ years old and teach them to be respectful and play nice. I personally think that making a class such as intercultural communication an option would be very helpful, especially professional students. But notice the term optional, I think cramming diversity down somebody's throat will accomplish little except to cause resentment. Face it, by the age of 22 if you have not learned respect and to "play nice," a one semester college class isn't going to help.

So what has GPSA done? I can only speak from my personal experience as a law student. I send fifty dollars a year to see twenty dollars come back in the form of PB Funds. That $20 gets stretched pretty thin, but at least it is going to help us get speakers, programs, etc. that help enrich my law school education. As for the other $30 dollars where is it going? I don't do research as a law student, frankly I don't have time under my class schedule and involvment. I am not recieving any mentoring or tutoring....I am not recieving a stipend for my work as a pro bono clinic student attorney. What am I getting for my $30 dollars.

Now the canned answer that I recieve when I ask this question is, I am getting a voice to the Regents through the GPSA President. You know I can't remember once when a law school issue was brought before the regents. For that matter I can't remember anybody telling me that President Garcia has secured anything that benefited the whole of Graduate and Professional Students. I have heard no mention of things like the Regents giving us more money for scholarships, housing, parking, etc. Nothing that broadscale helps us as whole. How about lobbying? What has the GPSA brought back lately? Have they got the tutition credit lowered? Is there money for a new graduate parking structure. Are there scholarships to help Graduate and Professional Students? Really has much been done?

I say all of this to point out the unrest and dissatifaction with our current system and with our current president. Granted this is only my perspective, but I know of at least a few people at the law school that share that perspective. So now with new accusations of derliction of duty or malfeasence. I think a lot of people are saying enough is enough. Maybe President Garcia hasn't done anything wrong, but he also may not be doing anything right. When you assume the role of leader you must perform because the onus is on you. If you can't effectively lead it is your responsibility and you must understand that you run the risk of being removed because you aren't accomplishing the tasks you were elected and PAID to do. If President Garcia has been derelict in his duties and he has acted in malfeasence then he should step down and if he doesn't then he should be removed. If this recall really is about a personal vendetta then it is wrong, but if there is any truth to what is being levered against him. Then perhaps we should all consider a change in leadership.

GPSA has, and is, becoming a huge governmental hegemonic beast. It does little to actually serve the students as whole and appears to be becoming increasingly inefficient and unconcerned with serving the needs of all students.

I apologize for the lengthy blog, but this really is a serious issue. Sorry if doesn't answer ilanit asked, but I think the discourse has given light to the fact that perhaps this is a much bigger issue than the points made in that original post. Thank for reading this, I hope the discourse continues and God Bless!

Aubrey Blair Dunn
UNM SCHOOL OF LAW 2008

Bhavana said...

"Wow, is that the same argument used by the Bush administration to justify what some consider torture."- Jason's blog post

Jason: I don't think Gene would approve of this post. Didn't you know that Gene is a hardcore supporter of Bush! Didn't you know that this interest in hiring admin staff has less to do with hiring and more to do with the fact that GPSA led by Joseph voted in favor of Anti-Iraq war resolution? That the people who are upset in Law school are upset because we talk about diversity, anti-discrimination, hate crimes-- issues that promote equity rather than continue priveleges of few.
I am sorry, Jason. As much as I like Ilanit and find her posting genuine and well analyzed, the reason behind this recall is not motivated by these immediate incidents.
For the first time in GPSA, we have a minority representative President who dares to speak about issues of equity. This is an important step.
Jason, perhaps you do not remember or you choose not to remember-- but your forefathers and mothers had to leave their lands, be murdered without a trial because they were known as savages. This happened less than a century ago.
Today, minorities who are in touch with their histories and identify with their people in this campus are speaking. Joseph has created a safe space to speak about these issues.
Sorry, Jason. Can't sidestep racism. Sorry, Gene. I do not find your emails wise or grandfatherly. I know you are merely fulfilling your personal vendetta against Joseph because he is progressive.

Bhavana

Anonymous said...

I commend everyone here who has tried to get the conversation back to the issues/questions raised by both Joseph Garcia and those who have questioned his effectiveness as president of GPSA.

Contrary to what Roxana may think, the job of a GPSA rep is not to agree with everything the president, council chair, or any one else may propose. It is to serve their constituents in making decision on issues brought before council.

And why stating an opinion about how someone may or may not be doing their job has to be construed as a personal attack is beyond rational comprehension. Why does expressing an opinion against Joseph Garcia or any other person have to be a "personal vendetta?" Why can't an opinion be just that?

Also, contrary to R. T. Rumble's post (if he was being serious) Joseph's duty as president of GPSA is to serve the entire graduate community, not just one or two groups - at least in my opinion. I'm not clear whether that is how Joseph view's his position, but it's clear that there is a certain segment of the graduate population that feels differently.

Ilanit raised important questions that only President Garcia can answer and hopefully he will. My understanding is that the status of office staff is one issue that needs to be addressed, but not the only one. Ideally we could have a discussion in which all persons have the right to be heard without being attacked or having their motives called into question. It is not surprising that people want to post anonymously. On the other hand, everyone deserves to be heard. It seems to me that we need to stop attacking each other and start listening to all sides of every issue. Mutual respect for the rights of others to have their own opinion might go a long way in aiding communication. How else can we make informed decisions?

Sue Taylor

Anonymous said...

Geez, I don't check my e-mail all day, and look what happens. To the people who think that this is all about politics, you are right. To the people who think that it is all about race, has there been anything in the history of the world that isn't, in your opinion? But you are also right. This is about the GPSA council being hijacked by a POLITICAL minority that has forgone serving the gradute students in the name of forcing an agenda of national politics down our throats. I support some of those politics, but I was not elected for my political views; I was elected to represent the needs of graduate students. I would like to get back to that work.

The fact is, and yes I said fact, that the mission GPSA is actually charged with has been forgotten while we all sit around in group therapy sessions and bullshit about world peace. Is that all Joseph's fault? Of course not. Has he supported an agenda that has nothing to do with graduate students while he has failed to manage his own budget? It would seem so. But the real problem I have is his own words (and the entire council heard them, not just Mel) when asked why we don't have an office employee: "I don't like the way the decision was made."

Regardless of your politics, regardless of whether you choose to make the issue racial, when the GPSA president disregards the council at will, serious questions need to be asked. I look forward to answers, but we have yet to hear them.

P.S. The very suggestion that this or any other Internet resource be censored by anyone makes me shudder. Perhaps the people who post anonymously do so because they fear having their positions attacked on the basis of the ethnicity (or lack thereof) of their last names.

Anonymous said...

wow...that is absolutely the worst thing I have ever seen written down...

Anonymous said...

To clarify Bhavana's post was the worst thing ever written...Not Mr. Mabe's

Anonymous said...

Bhavanna,

While I'm getting old, I'm not a grandfather yet and am in no hurry.

Re: wisdom, judging from the level of emotion leveled at individuals in this discourse, I would say we all have a ways to go.

I have tried very hard to understand you and while I'll will likely always disagree with you, I still respect you.

However, tolerance and diversity seems to be extended only to those who agree with you - I find that definition lacking.

You attacked Melanie today without any facts yet I have yet to hear an apology. I guess it's okay for you to insult folks but they are supposed to turn the other cheek.

You chide Jason as to his knowledge of his culture's history without knowing it yourself. Just because you think someone is a racist doesn't make it so.

I can trace my family history in New Mexico back a few hundred years and along with Hispanic, Mexican and Native American blood, I've also also had Northern European ancestors. Please don' try to lecture me or tell me I am either oppressed because of my skin color or an oppressor because of my last name.

I'm not going to accept that from you any longer.

You presume to think I am a hardcore supporter of President Bush. you are partly correct.I support President Bush but I am far from a hardcore anything.

Don't ever presume you have a clue as to why I feel a certain way. You haven't come close as to my reasons.

You are correct in that we differ in our beliefs, that's okay as far as I'm concerned.

You have the right to your pain if that is how you choose to live but please don't try to impose it on others.

My issues with President Garcia precede his recent agenda. He is not a dictator and he doesn't get to decide which Council directives he will comply with. He has been less than honest or candid, something I had hoped he would be. I believed him when he said his goal for his administration was transparency. We passed the legislation in May to create the permanent position and he can hardly blame the bureaucracy for it's pace when by his own admission, he hadn't sent the job description to Human Resources until last week. By my math that's 5-6 months for a two week transaction.

I am heartened to see he took some responsibility for this delay,however, what I'd really like to see is the position created and filled.

I do not for a moment think that the activist agenda President Garcia is trying to implement is what most Grad students are interested in - I have yet to hear from a single student who wants their money spent on these issues.
100% of the grad students who email me care about several basic things:

1. Make my life at UNM tangibly better as a student. Help me navigate through the monolith that is UNM.
2.Have UNM provide an effective orientation for all grad students - so many are left to the abilities or lack thereof of their departments- the sink or swim model.
3.GPSA should push for training for professors to know how to mentor students, so the academic experience is honorable, fair and enlightening instead of their becoming disillusioned, bitter and leaving UNM.
4.GPSA should work to obtain real academic advisement, so grads know what they have to do to get a degree in the most efficient and timely manner.

These are what I hear grad students want - these are things where our voice is needed and appreciated and can have impact.

I care about the things that will make this academic experience of benefit to all grad students - not to developing someone's political career or agenda.

If that is your bent, run for Congress, I hear there are three openings in New Mexico.

We have a job to do for our constituents and I'd like to see us get back to that job, i.e. serving our fellow students.

Bhavana said...

Gene and Ben:
I am sorry I attacked Melanie. Of course Gene you provided edits. I should have known that.

100% of people who email me or talk to me or visit with me talk about issues of equity, of their struggles prior to school and struggles during school and of not having an equal footing.

Yeah, I know you would like presidents to be those who do not touch sensitive issues like race, gender, issues of discrimination, but only talk of grants, and such monetary benefits which are utilized mostly by people who know how to speak, write, and behave white.

I don't and 100% people who write to me and talk to me say they want more than grants and such.

Political minority-- grin, Jo won with a landslide defeating Dunn and sorts in the first election. In the second election, he ran unopposed!

I can't run for anything political here nor do I want to. But I definately want to make our human society a better place for all. That is why I am getting educated, not to arrogate myself with a few more degrees.

----
Sue: I wish to respect your letter and will end here. But please note, I have lost so much money because of inequity that I do not care if I lose some more because of beuracratic hanglings. I care for equity and justice. And I stand by a president who believes in it.

Bhavana
Please note everybody: by recalling Joseph, you recalling the process of making this campus just and equal to all groups. You are recalling justice.

Bhavana said...

"To clarify Bhavana's post was the worst thing ever written...Not Mr. Mabe's"

Moulik Kothari: Please do not write from Cleveland about issues that concern graduates at UNM simply because you have a grudge against me. You do not care about grad issues. And if you must carry your personal vendetta, please publish your name.

Anonymous said...

Who is "Moulik Kothari" is he one of the Indian students that was attacked?

Bhavana, Why do you assume it is this particular person?

Anonymous said...

Bhavana.

Your dogmatic zealousness and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts continues to astonish me.

By recalling Joseph, you are recalling the process of making this campus just and equal to all groups. You are recalling justice.

This is an idiotic and patently false statement. You toss accusations, slander, and baseless charges around with reckless abandon and usually without a hint of proof beyond the weak teleological argument of

a) Racism is pervasive and present at every level of society
b) Joseph is a Hispanic man
c) Therefore any request for accountability, transparency in our democratically elected student government and request for advocacy on issues beyond the racism / equity / and justice must be motivated by racism

This is a flimsy divisive polarizing argument that diverts attention away from the substantive issues at hand and hurts ever single council member. But you persist, unapologetically, because you are fighting against racism and injustice and for equity and justice. The presumption being that the rest of us, ANYONE who has dared to ask a question regarding the constitutionality of hate speech codes, what constitutes a hate crime, mandating a 3 credit hour diversity class for all graduate students, and on and on is immediately branded as intolerant, bigoted, or racist. And not interested in combating racism and injustice. You couldn’t be farther from the truth but if it the discourse doesn’t completely match your personal perspective or opinion you drive it from the room. You are an astonishing selfish person – my way or no way at all. Like a religious zealot who uses the name of God to commit crimes or oppress others, you utilize the terms “social justice” and “racism” to righteously justify your disgraceful attacks upon many members of this democratically elected body and therefore deny full voice and participation.

The fact that we, as a Council, let a member harangue another member and drive him out of the Council meeting is disgraceful. And embarrassing. No one has ever suggested apologizing to Ben Mabe but I think we all owe him an apology. We allowed a member, a representative, our colleague, to be marginalized and driven from an open meeting simply for acknowledging your life experience and having the audacity to ask if the experiences and subsequent enlightenment of a privileged Brahman Indian woman (.i.e. you) is applicable to all graduate students. He didn’t make an outrageous anti-Semitic, homophobic, or racist comment. He simply asked if your personal experience would be applicable to all. This is the line of dialogue, inquiry, and debate that we should encourage but instead we are treated to essentially fascist tactics of driving inquiry, inquiry and dissent from the room.


By recalling Joseph, you are recalling the process of making this campus just and equal to all groups. You are recalling justice.

No. By recalling Joseph Garcia we are allowing the graduate and professional student body to voice a vote of confidence or non-confidence on the policies and practices of his administration.

If he is recalled a second election would take place, open to ALL graduate and professional students. I sincerely hope that all candidates would make a part of their campaign to make this campus just and equal to all groups.

Your statement infers that Joseph Garcia is the ONLY one capable or dedicated to making this campus just and equal to all groups and fighting for justice. Your condescension for anyone outside of your sphere of friends is predictable and disgraceful. An equally qualified and dedicated candidate of color can and undoubtedly will emerge from the professional schools, the sciences, or anywhere else in the graduate student body. To even suggest that Joseph is the only one, the ONLY one, is a slight upon all graduate students and so shamelessly nepotistic that it is laughable.

Why must you always engage in the racialized politics of vilification and fear? And why are you so stuck on a Hispanic man? Why are you subordinating yourself to a patriarchal phallocentric and heterocentric model of governance? I would love to see a woman of color run for the office. Or how about an openly gay, lesbian, or transgendered candidate? We have an incredible amount of diversity in our graduate student body. Let’s tap into it for fresh new leadership. One that can focus on the issues of diversity and justice but also of concern to the full Grad Student body such as affordable housing, additional research money, benefits for TA’s, GA’s, etc., other funding sources and services to non-traditional students who are older, wiser and may have other kinds of needs.

We do have choices.

Let’s explore them and ignore Bhavana shameless fear mongering

Anonymous said...

Can someone please just answer my question about if a budget can be amended and when the GPSA fiscal year starts (when a new budget takes effect)?

I was thinking that if this first question was answered it could mean a couple of things- either that Council could have amended the budget to include the new position and did not try last year, or that it could not be amended and the position could only have been filled this year. If the former is the case, why did Council not amend the budget? If the latter is the case, why was it not clear what should have happened with those funds sooner? Why wait until now to get them back and why did Council approve raising the fees if money was being misappropriated? Joseph himself has admitted that it took longer than it should. I was actually pointing out that maybe there is some responsibility that Council can take too. Further, by knowing when the fiscal year started, we can be clear on exactly how late this job appointment is. If it starts Summer 2007 then we have been waiting almost two terms. If it starts Fall 2007, then we are only one semester behind and we can possibly start next semester off with a new employee.

Also, has there been an update on the status of SRAC and ST grant awards? Students in my department come to me to complain that they haven't heard yet and I don't know what to tell them. I brought those grants up hoping that a conversation might start about that. I understand that people talk about these things in person and at committee meetings and stuff, but the rest of us graduate students don't know what is going on and I think it is only fair to ask that an announcement be made at least in this public internet forum.

I didn't mean for that first post with all the questions to be an inflammatory attack on Joseph. I was just hoping that we could all talk about the problems more in depth than addressed in his letter to us. Though my response was addressed to him, I was hoping that other people might see that there are points that we can all discuss. It would, though, be nice if Joseph would respond too, though I can understand why it might seem better to sit back and let all this bickering die down.

Maybe I am too idealistic for trying to push us into 'where did it go wrong and where do we go from here' mode... I am not commenting on the the other posts on this blog, and I don't know how to start a new topic or I would have (sorry I know someone posted instructions for that at some point). This will be my final attempt to get people talking about what matters to the students who I help represent. I hope that now that I have spelled it out more, ti is more digestible. My apologies for the length.

Shalom,
Ilanit

Anonymous said...

Ilanit

I'm probably not the best person to answer your questions, but no one else seems to be jumping in here. I was Finance Chair a few years back and things may have changed since then. I believe the fiscal year is the same as the university - July 1 to June 30. I quickly skimmed the constitution and it does not seem to address whether or not the budget can be amended, but probably it can. Someone would need to check with the Student Activities Director to confirm that.
Hope this helps some.

Sue Taylor

Shannon McCoy-Hayes said...

Ilinit said....

Can " a budget can be amended and(sic) when the GPSA fiscal year starts (when a new budget takes effect)?"

"has there been an update on the status of SRAC and ST grant awards?"

I second Ilinit's questions. Can someone from our Council please answer her questions?

Shannon McCoy-Hayes said...

Thanks, Sue...

Now who is going to contact the SGAC? Who is GPSA's current Finance Chair?

Anonymous said...

Shannon

Both good questions. I was told last week by a council rep that SRAC results were promised by last Friday. Since I didn't apply for one this time I don't have any way of knowing if that happened or not.

I also don't know who is Finance Chair this year, but that would certainly be the appropriate person to make such an inquiry of the SGAC.

Anonymous said...

Ilanit, et. al.

I'll try to answer as many questions as possible.

1.Re: budget matters - Sue is correct, we all operate on a July 1, fiscal year.

2.The Finance Chair is Issac Padilla.

3. Can a budget be amended - certainly and is done occasionally during the fiscal year.

4. The issue regarding the raising of the fees was to cover the additional expense incurred for a permanent position as opposed to having part time student staff.

5.I believe you posed the correct inquiry regarding the timeliness or lack thereof of the job posting. Joseph is correct in that bureaucracy takes some time. However, he knew since, charitably at least, last May that this was to be done. He did not meet with the other parties directed either by UNM policy or Council Directive. The Council has brought this up every meeting since. I know this personally as I have brought it up in all but the November meeting. His response has been to the effect- he'll get to it. More directly the response has been "I don't agree with the Council". He is well within his rights to disagree with Council. He does not have the authority to flout Council directives.

I believe all members received at least two proposed job descriptions - one acceptable the other certainly flawed - HR would have had serious concerns if it had been presented.

Please understand, at least from my perspective, this has nothing to do with the individuals Joseph has hired. They would certainly be welcome to apply and one might well be the best candidate but then we would have the permanent position we, the Council, have prescribed now for a year and change.

Re: SRAC and ST - the failure to complete these processes in a timely fashion are two of the many reasons we wanted permanent help on staff. I have heard all kinds of excuses and reasons for this failure - I choose not to cite them at this time as I'm still waiting for a budget report that can cast more light on the finances of GPSA - a report we as Council used to get monthly but to date have not received this fiscal year.

The delay in getting timely, accurate and complete reports from committees is yet another example of the issues I have with this administration.

I would be glad to share further thoughts with anyone wishing to visit.
Gene

Anonymous said...

ilanit,

Addressing a few of your points:
1) I don't understand why the position was not included in last year's budget if the council voted to create the position and to raise student fees.

The GPSA Council has never explicitly line itemed in the Spring budgeting process what is considered the "Operating Budget". The President should create a specific line-itemed budget before or around the July 1 fiscal year boundary for the Council-stated amount of money for the office for the coming year. That budget should include all requirements/recommendations of the Constitution/Bylaws and items that Council has explicitly stated should be funded. So, the money for the office staff person was one item explicitly stated in the pot of money that is the office operating budget voted by Council in April 2006 and April 2007, and Council directed the president to hire the person and spend the money at a certain level of funding.

a) once the budget is made, is there no way to amend it?

Council has always run with the budget (committees and office components) set the prior spring. After the president has line itemed the operating budget around July 1, minor adjustments are made by the president typically towards the end of their term as you see that you need to spend a little more here you've a bit of a surplus there. The GPSA Council has not made any large budget adjustments since I've been on or observed Council (Fall 2001), as typically the budget made the year before meets the needs of the GPSA. There's no provision against adjusting the budget of the GPSA mid year, but it's hard to say how to change this year's office budget without seeing it. This year's president has not created an operating budget to date, which is atypical at this point in the year.

b) shouldn't the student fees have been returned, or at least not charged (the following semesters), once someone realized that those funds would not be able to be used for the reason they were charged?

I cannot speak to the details on this point. I think a lot of the sentiment this fall is an attempt to rectify the situation, now that it has been pointed out.

c) even if the hire could not have been made last year, when was the first term that the hire could have technically been made? Summer 2007? Fall 2007?

Let's assume that the hiring could only have begun after the April 2007 Council meeting. I'm not exactly sure of details before then. Certainly advance preparation could have been made, as the job had been discussed all of academic year 2006-2007. But, I'll be conservative.

Funds were in place at the April 2007 GPSA Council meeting to hire this staff person, and the budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year included funds. As the Council had directed the President to start the hiring process Summer 2007, I would have expected the process to take place at the beginning of the Summer term, say late May 2007. A hypothetical timeline from there would be having the job description submitted through SGAO to HR the first week in June. Conservatively, give HR 2 weeks to get the job submission processed and advertised. We're now at the third week in June. The job is listed for 4 weeks? 6? So, we're at the end of July. Give two weeks for interviews and a final decision, and the person is hired in time for the beginning of Fall 2007 term.

d) why hadn't the job description begun to be written before summer if it was something that was anticipated well in advance? We can all appreciate the slowness of UNM bureaucracy, but with planning, it seems like it could have gone more smoothly.

I certainly agree, and sympathize with your frustration as to the slow pace of hiring this staff person on the GPSA's end.

Anonymous said...

If we want to talk about respect, I would like to know why those that are upset with the job Joseph Garcia has done as president, are not trying to first dialogue about the problems, rather than go to the extreme of launching a petition for a recall.

As far as the complaints about financial mismanagement people have, I would be open to having a conversation about this, including all parties.

However, as things stand right now, I think the current situation looks a lot like what has happened in Venezuela. A group of people are upset with a president who they claim is "undemocratic" and coincidentally (or I think not so uncoincidentally) has stood up for contentious issues (i.e. the Iraq War Res, the Diversity Res, and Hate Crimes Res) that might ultimately lead to a shifting of power in UNM's graduate schools regarding inequality in access and position as a result of race, gender, class, sexual orientation....I personally am proud to be a member of GPSA where we have a president and a majority of members that take a stand on issues of social justice in academia and the larger community.

Unknown said...

Thank you all for your responses. They have helped me to better understand the circumstances of these matters.

What I am hearing is that technically the president should have included the job in last year's budget but did not for whatever reason, and then technically the budget could have been amended by Council and the President but was not perhaps because it is not standard procedure and at the time people were not so worried about it. So that's explains the lag from last year and places responsibility on both the president and the council.

Then, since the job was included the budget as of last April, the earliest possible the job could have been filled was early Fall 2007. In Joseph's e-mail he gave us his perspective as to why things have taken so long and what is done is done. So now what? Can we get things moving to get this position filled by the end of the semester or sooner?

I received the following response from Max about SRAC:
"Only when all the SRAC applications have been scored by at minimum 3 people can the award amounts be determined.
The last two people that did the reading and scoring dropped off their scored application packets on Monday, yesterday.
Today, Tuesday, the awards are being processed and emails sent out. Email notifications will arrive today and at the latest tomorrow.

Over a dozen fellow graduate students took time out from their busy schedules to score the SRAC applications. Thank you for your patience and appreciation. "

Thank you especially to Shannon and Joseph for following up. Still waiting to hear about ST.

Thanks again for all your responses.

Anonymous said...

>If we want to talk about respect, I would like to know why those that
are upset with the job Joseph Garcia has done as president, are not trying to first dialogue about the problems, rather than go to the
>extreme of launching a petition for a recall.

>As far as the complaints about financial mismanagement people have, I
would be open to having a conversation about this, including all
parties.


Lucinda, these discussions have taken place at the GPSA Council meetings in September, October and November. There's something on the order of $40,000 in the GPSA office budget for this year that has not been budgeted, nor spent as it should have been in the past five months. Foreseeably for the rest of the year these funds will not be spent as intended. Most of that should be locked into hiring office staff, by the will of the Council since April 2007. Instead, some unknown portion of that has been used for five months to hire graduate students as work study. The Council has repeatedly voted for these funds to be spent in the way they were intended. Those votes have been repeatedly bypassed. For details, see others' posts. This conflict has repeatedly been discussed with the current GPSA President, and no progress has been made. This is much of the substance behind the recall effort, which I have signed.

I have represented my department for six and a half years on the GPSA Council, trying to improve their and other graduate student's education at UNM. I think I've missed three or four Council meetings in that time.

I was also elected President of the GPSA for the two years prior to Joseph. I held myself fiscally accountable to our student body by line item budgeting the money entrusted to my management at the beginning of each fiscal year, and following that budget. This was the practice of presidents prior to me in their interaction with the Student Government Accounting Office. I regularly provided information as to how those funds were being spent to the GPSA Council, and followed their direction over those aspects of GPSA finances under the Council's purview. I don't say this boastfully, but rather to draw comparisons to the points being made in the petition. I did not disregard the will of Council. These are not steps that have been done recently.

>However, as things stand right now, I think the current situation looks a lot like what has happened in Venezuela. A group of people are upset with a president who they claim is "undemocratic" and coincidentally (or I think not so uncoincidentally) has stood up for contentious issues (i.e. the Iraq War Res, the Diversity Res, and Hate Crimes Res) that might ultimately lead to a shifting of power in UNM's graduate schools regarding inequality in access and position as a result of race, gender, class, sexual orientation....I personally am proud to be a member of GPSA where we have a president and a majority of members that take a stand on issues of social justice in academia and the larger community.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. People are upset because the current GPSA president hasn't followed the repeated will of the GPSA Council, which has authority over most fiscal matters, including this one. The issues at hand have nothing to do with diversity or minority concerns. I do not see logically how you link the financial conflict with over the fees that graduate and professional students pay with unsubstantiated statements of obstructionism, especially since a number of graduate students supporting the petition have been involved with crafting and supporting these resolutions by the GPSA.

Please show me facts that support your position, or don't slander fellow graduate student colleagues. I try to be very careful and objective with the statements that I make, based upon events and information that I have witnessed. I hope that you will do the same.

Anonymous said...

Ilanit, some factual clarifications to your summation of previous comments.

>What I am hearing is that technically the president should have included the job in last year's budget but did not for whatever reason, and then technically the budget could have been amended by Council and the President but was not perhaps because it is not standard procedure and at the time people were not so worried about it. So that's explains the lag from last year and places responsibility on both the president and the council.

Not exactly. The money to hire an office staff person was included in GPSA's overall budget for 2006-2007, by vote of Council. In each yearly budget, the Council sets the overall amount given to cover the office expenses. The President then line items that amount, blocking $120 to pay for the phone lines for the year, etc. Council generally does not require the GPSA President to spend this money for specific items. However, in this case the Council specifically voted that x amount (I don't have it off the top of my head) should be spent on an office assistant.

Joseph stated in his letter that he was informed that the previous President (me) and the Council had not budgeted the money for a staff person. This is incorrect. We had not sufficiently budgeted for that staff person. The issue was not over whether to hire someone; it was a matter of insufficient funds.
The intent of the Council to hire a staff person was clear; the underbudgeting was also clear. Noone is blaming Joseph for the fact that we were unable to hire someone that year.

Throughout that year, the Council affirmed the fact that they wanted to hire a staff person, and changed the distribution of the GPSA budget for 2007-2008 to explicitly require the President to hire someone.



> Then, since the job was included the budget as of last April, the earliest possible the job could have been filled was early Fall 2007. In Joseph's e-mail he gave us his perspective as to why things have taken so long and what is done is done. So now what? Can we get things moving to get this position filled by the end of the semester or sooner?

The GPSA President did not create a job description for this position in 2006-2007, even though he knew that the Council wanted this person hired. Once he was required to start the hiring process at the April 2007 Council meeting, he could have had the job description written and submitted much more quickly than I conservatively estimated earlier, to start the hiring process. Instead, he delayed from mid-April until the Friday afternoon before the November meeting to knowingly, incorrectly submit a job description, which he had told Council he would do at both the September and October Council meetings. At the September meeting Council explicitly required him to work with the director of the Student Activities Center, our advisor, and the Council Chair to draft the job description, as he had not done it over the summer, and that this would be accomplished quickly. The GPSA has previous job descriptions from hiring work-study students that could be expanded upon. At the October meeting he said he would do it within the first week of October.

Joseph wrote: Anyway, while we took the steps to hire a ¾ time admin, the office has been open everyday upwards of ten hours per day.

It does not take 5 months to write a job description. Don't blame this delay on other people. I wrote the one for work-study students I hired for those positions in a week or two, in collaboration with the Council Chair and our advisor in the Student Activities Center.

If Joseph has submitted the job description in a workable form, then I conjecture HR will have the position posted in 2 work weeks, so the end of November. Conjecturing that they will post the position for 4 business weeks, it might close by the end of December. If the interviews and hiring decision can be quickly turned around (2 weeks), then budget another two weeks for HR to process hiring the person. So, instead of having an office staff person starting mid-August 2007, the earliest someone will be start is the end of January, 2007.

I'm not arguing details here. I'm pointing out that Joseph has willfully, repeatedly disregarded Council's votes, and doesn't look to change any time soon.

>I received the following response from Max about SRAC:
"Only when all the SRAC applications have been scored by at minimum 3 people can the award amounts be determined.
The last two people that did the reading and scoring dropped off their scored application packets on Monday, yesterday.
Today, Tuesday, the awards are being processed and emails sent out. Email notifications will arrive today and at the latest tomorrow.

>Over a dozen fellow graduate students took time out from their busy schedules to score the SRAC applications. Thank you for your patience and appreciation. "

>Thank you especially to Shannon and Joseph for following up. Still waiting to hear about ST.

This is a separate matter entirely from the petition.

This is my objective evaluation of the schedule of SRAC this fall, to provide information to ya'll. I have chaired both ST (4 cycles) and SRAC (1 cycle). For the six and half years I have participated in the GPSA, these processes have never taken more than 6 to 6 1/2 weeks, depending upon how holidays lie. I got them done in that time. This includes readers taking their time about returning their packets.

So, where are we now? The time it takes to get responses back from successful grantees and get the money into their bursar's account is fixed, and takes about 3-4 weeks at the quickest, depending how quickly folks send back their signed acceptance letter. Money can be in student's accounts, then, by 9-10 weeks from the application deadline. This is mid-late November for a fall process with deadline on the 5th Friday of the term.

When looking back at previous terms, the process is not done when the packets are back. There is still a re-reading step, when applications that have been discrepantly scored are rescored for fairness. For SRAC, this step takes about a week. For ST, it's shorter because there's fewer applications to reread. This step is included in the typical 6 -6 1/2 week timeframe. If Max gets the first round of apps back Nov. 12th, there's faint hope he can get the re-reads done before Nov 19th, and have the results out the next day, Nov. 20th. Give 3 weeks for the acceptance and bursar turnaround, and you're at Dec. 11th. So, he's running about three weeks late on a 6 week process.

Anonymous said...

btw, this blog is a great way to have a discussion. Kudos to those who set it up.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know I was supposed to be blogging and not using the main listserv.

I will reply within text:


-----Original Message-----
From: GPSA List Serv on behalf of Isaac Padilla
Sent: Tue 11/13/2007 6:01 PM
To: GPSA-L@LIST.UNM.EDU
Subject: Re: [GPSA-L] the recall

What basic needs are not being addressed? The office is open more than
50 hrs a week, if there was a three quarter staff person working the
office would only be open 30 hrs a week and cost 60% more graduate
student dollars. An Admin II would leave for lunch and the office
would close. The person would leave at three and the office would not
open until 8 am the next day. When the office staff was sick the office
would not open. There are two students in the office that use it as a
space to study and as such, the office is open past 5 and often until 9
or 10. Tell me how will a staff person better provide for the needs of
grad students?

---What does it matter how many hours a week an office is "open" if you are sitting there doing homework? The basic needs that are not being addressed are the fact that staff were not hired in a timely manner, that we pay exorbitant fees for god knows what, and as a law student, I really have not seen anything that the GPSA has done for us.


You want more funding but how can we lobby for more dollars if we are
not willing to use our money to fund grad students. I have asked
legislators for more dollars and they ask what we do to fund ourselves.
Joseph has attended multiple legislative sessions asking for low
interest student loans and increased funding for grad students. We will
be in Santa Fe 2 or 3 days a week to lobby for students. How much time
do you think the opposition will give to this cause? How much time can
you VOLUNTEER to increase funding for grad student?


---are you asking how much time "I" can volunteer or how much time can "one" volunteer. Are you suggesting that your lobbying actions are not paid for? If its the former, I don't need to volunteer, that's why I pay you. And for the latter, well, you should be getting paid for your position out of the money we all pay. And speaking of lobbying, how many low interest loans has Joseph "procured" for graduate students during his tenure as President?


UNM is a Hispanic serving institution and as a result we receive
funding designated for Hispanic serving institutions, if we loose the
designation we loose funding so diversity directly affects our academic
funding. The psychology department was in danger of loosing its
accreditation because it was not diverse. Had they lost their
accreditation they would loose funding for graduate students.

---What are you saying, "diversity training" will attract more Hispanic students to UNM, thus helping it keep its funding and accreditation? I fail to see the connection. I am "Hispanic", in fact, I am Mexican. What is GPSA doing to attract "Hispanics" to the graduate and professional departments? Is this mandatory training part of that "plan"? Do you think hate crimes are keeping Hispanics away? Last time I checked, we are well-represented at the law school. This is a conscious effort by the law school admissions department, I am sure; so mandatory diversity training is not within GPSA's jurisdiction, but the independent departments, such as the Psychology Dept.

Diversity and hate crimes are issues the President of UNM asked our
body to address so if Joseph is wasting our time then the President is
wasting our time. Why do you not send him a letter asking the President
of the university to stop wasting time?

---I'd be happy to. Why is the UNM President pushing HIS agenda on the GPSA. The GPSA is there to represent the needs of the graduate and professional students, not to do the bidding of the UNM President.



Joseph helped set up a benefits committee that met over the summer to
improve health care coverage for grad students and the majority of the
people who served on the committee are his biggest supporters. Ask the
chair of the committee.


---And our healthcare benefits improved how?



There was never a call for a required diversity course; it was a call
for diversity requirement. You are studying to be a lawyer so I would
assume you can understand and interpret nuance in words. If a dept
already addresses diversity in its curriculum nothing would change. The
most this resolution would require is to change existing courses if the
dept does not address this need. Once again the President of the
University has made diversity one of his priorities, Joseph was
following his lead.

---What are the proposed courses that would satisfy this "diversity requirement" and why wasn't it put to an open and free vote? The law school has courses that on their face would satisfy this requirement "Gender and the Law" for example, but I don't see the need for this course to be mandatory. I am not taking it because I have many other courses I'd like to take instead and they have nothing to do with gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Hopefully, Constitutional Rights will take care of that "requirement" because I don't have the time or the money to take a class for which I have no need. (Uh, I AM Mexican, have many gay friends and relatives, I am in an inter-racial and inter-faith marriage).


The resolution was not passed in a back room and it was not spearheaded
by "anonymous." It was introduced to the entire council so the
democratic process could work. Those that supported this did not send
an anonymous email; if it is important enough to fight for something
then a person should not fear attaching their name to the fight.

---If it was not passed in a backroom, why is it causing so much outcry NOW? It was obviously not open enough. This is not just MY problem. Just read the blog, listen to your constituents. THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE JOB THE GPSA IS DOING. I personally do not know Joseph and have no personal vendetta against him, I just want what I pay for and want transparency in the GPSA administration.

Unknown said...

Thanks Buckner for that clarification! And I do think the details are important so thanks for providing them!

On the listserv, Isaac Padilla said "
What basic needs are not being addressed? The office is open more than
50 hrs a week, if there was a three quarter staff person working the
office would only be open 30 hrs a week and cost 60% more graduate
student dollars. An Admin II would leave for lunch and the office
would close. The person would leave at three and the office would not
open until 8 am the next day. When the office staff was sick the office
would not open. There are two students in the office that use it as a
space to study and as such, the office is open past 5 and often until 9
or 10. Tell me how will a staff person better provide for the needs of
grad students?

You want more funding but how can we lobby for more dollars if we are
not willing to use our money to fund grad students."

If this is all true, has this alternative been extensively discussed in council meetings?

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

I think this whole thing is SO crazy! We have a forum to discuss this and it is called the GPSA monthly meetings. I get so tired of hearing people whine about not getting what they want when they never participate in a single meeting. It is only once a month people--how hard can that REALLY be? We are all graduate students with limited times, most of us with families etc. But yet, some of us DO take the time to work on issues.
Yes, I have my own problems with the system, for instance, I notice that a lot of important issues seem to get tabled or pushed until the end of meetings as a way to get the wanted results because representatives are too tired and too confused and too "battle weary" to take it up in a thoughtful way. I think it has been suggested many times that even a twice a month meeting might be more effective.
But as far as accusations go against the president and the board it is just silly. Especially in regards to the GPSA Chair who was voted in for another term in the position because she does such a GREAT job of mediating. To say that she would send out anonymous comments or is trying to "attack" anyone is just as ridiculous as saying that Joseph is purposefully not fulfilling his duties.
It is so amazing that these people are even willing to take on this job. I for one have seen some great things come out of the GPSA--funding for important campus events, new resolutions for the treatment of graduate students (that have directly impacted me) and even the recent graduate conference run by the GPSA. But here is the thing--if you don't go to the meetings or don't make the effort, you really don't know what is going on. I have seen these people BEG students to come and represent their departments and nobody has stepped forward.
I agree with ilanit's post that we need to focus on the issue at hand--personal attacks are so juvenile. We're not in high school after all.

Anonymous said...

I do not and did not support the idea of a 3/4 staff person for the GPSA office. During that particular meeting many representatives were forced to make a quick decision. There was a lot of pressure to pass a budget before the end of the meeting so everyone could go home. I felt that this was manipulative on the part of the GPSA. I agree with a previous post that more meetings per month are necessary.

Anonymous said...

The above poster makes a good point, as do many others in arguments for GAs as opposed to a regular employee. Some of you may recall that I argued against a regular employee last May and voted no on the resolution. I have no knowledge of what happened the previous year, but it is certainly my understanding that good arguments against a regular employee have been made for quite some time. Nonetheless, the council voted to hire one. Twice.

This year we have asked, even demanded, a great deal of action from the University on a wide variety of issues. We have even demanded that the President of the United States withdraw out troops from Iraq. Yet we cannot manage to enforce the resolutions that pertain to our own business?

It's no wonder that so many graduate students seem to feel that GPSA has become an irrelevant waste of student fees. How can we ask the University to take the council seriously until we take it seriously ourselves?

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the previous comment of 8:16 PM.

The admin position was discussed extensively at several Council meetings in the spring of 2006. The idea was not new to Council, and everyone had had a chance to weigh in on the matter. The budget was presented at the April 2006 meeting, with discussion. The Council voted on it at the May 2006 meeting, also with discussion. So, there was a lot of time to think about and come to a decision on this topic. I recall a lot of conversation, both pro and con, at several meetings that spring.

Looking at the minutes online, the topic was again discussed, and a detailed budget presented, at the April and May 2007 meetings, both of which had discussion in Council.

I think that the idea that Council members did not have time to think through their decision on the matter does not have merit. The Council thought the matter through, and made an informed, thoughtful decision. The Council then reinforced those decisions at the September, October and November Council meetings.

I agree with the previous comment, and think the idea that we should have meetings more often does have merit, and warrants discussion. There are a lot of interesting pros and cons to the matter.

Anonymous said...

The person creating controversies here is a nutjob who's been ignored as mentally imbalanced on other forums. Save your energies.

Anonymous said...

are your'l paid for this shit?

Unknown said...

I promised myself that this is my last posting. I just wanted to thank you all again for answering my questions and hearing my opinions and for your dedication and time commitment to GPSA. I myself am but an alternate representative for my department and I don't go to all of the meetings, but in the few meetings that I have sat in on I have been so impressed with you all and your dedication, even when you disagree. Those meetings really are run like clockwork- Mel you are amazing! Unfortunately, I can't continue to be involved in these discussions because I cannot commit the time - I have a thesis to write! As individuals you all seem like good people to me that are trying to make a difference in our community. I wish you all the best of luck! I have faith that you all will work something out that is in the best interests of the graduate student body. Good luck!

Signing off,
Ilanit

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Danny Hernandez

At 11:04 this evening on the GPSA-L list Danny took us to a new, and lower, level of shameless race baiting discourse.

In case you missed it, when describing this situation in a missive sent to the GPSA-L. Danny wrote “The real reason for this lynching…”

A lynching.

To be accurate it should probably be referred to as a high tech lynching because it has taken place on electronic forums but the thought of you sharing discourse space with Justice Clarence Thomas is probably a bit too nauseating.

A lynching.

You feel that a discussion on the policies and practices of the current GPSA administration is a lynching. Asking the graduate and professional student body to potentially voice a vote of confidence or non-confidence on the policies and practices of his administration is tantamount to a lynching.

It is truly disappointing that you’ve elected to take this important discourse in such vile uncalled for debased directions. I expected better from you.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. To bust out the preposterous idea that this is a "race" issue or a way to keep you "down" by protecting our privileged status quo is avoiding the real and valid issues raised by your fellow graduate and professional students. It is really commendable that "this one time, we stayed real late with a student...". To say that you have "discovered" the "real" reason people are disgruntled and that this reason has ANYTHING to do with their privileged status is just plain insulting. As far as I am concerned, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has made it to graduate or professional school is in a privileged position.

Can we stick to the real issues which you have failed to address yet again: to have transparency in the policies and practices carried out by the current administration, the details of which have been mentioned (and avoided by said administration) ad nauseum...

Anonymous said...

"The fact that we, as a Council, let a member harangue another member and drive him out of the Council meeting is disgraceful. And embarrassing. No one has ever suggested apologizing to Ben Mabe but I think we all owe him an apology."

While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't actually think that anyone was trying to be offensive at the meeting. They were expressing their beliefs. I may disagree with them, even take offense when it was not intended, but I will never apologize for my beliefs, and I don't expect anyone else to either. No dialog can happen when the first concern is "who will this offend?"

Anonymous said...

Ben is a strong individual who served in a war zone; I do not think any person could drive him out of a meeting. He is passionate in his believes and he is effective with his tactics why would he need a person to defend him?

Anonymous said...

Joseph came to the office of the presidency to expand the scope of GPSA and increase the stature of this body. In the past, which is obvious from some posts to our Listserve, most grad and professional students believed the only purpose of the GPSA was to disperse money either to individual in the form of travel and research grants or for graduate student organizations. Joseph had a vision for the office and he has worked to achieve his goal.

His vision was to make GPSA a body that deliberated and passed legislation that was calculated in the decisions of this University of New Mexico, the City of Albuquerque, and the State of New Mexico. A GPSA resolution is now a state law, the City of Albuquerque is now tapping into the wealth of expertise housed on campus, and we have been asked by the administration to discuss and offer recommendations on issues that will impact UNM.

When in the past has a sitting State Senator or a sitting City Councilor attended a GPSA meeting? When in the past has a UNM Vice-President prepared and delivered a thirty minute presentation to GPSA? Our organization is gaining stature, and when we lobby the administration and government on behalf of graduate students, our voice is being heard.

We can create an office that is a strong advocate for graduate students and a place they come to when they have problems with the administration, faculty, advisors, committee chairs, staff and financial aid or any other concerns they might have on and off campus. All other levels of government have constituent services and GPSA is now creating its own brand of constituent service.

Garcia’s choice to lead rather than rollover created enemies because his vision and achievements deviate from the “way we have always done it”. The status quo becomes ingrained when people who lack vision struggle to come to grips there fading power, and this is the face of the opposition. The pathetic accepts the status quo; the leader changes it.

If students want GPSA to digress and once again become nothing more than a piggy bank, then vote to recall Joseph. Those who are working to elevate the office will leave the debate because a GRD, ST, and SRAC grants are trivial compared to the potential that must exist in an organization lead by graduate and professional students.

Anonymous said...

A couple of comments:
First, someone was thrown off the GPSA listserve earlier this year because(s)he posted anonymously.
Funny how "anonymous" has become synonymous with "attacking Joseph" or "attacking Bhavana."
Hilarious is Gene admitting that one of his "anonymous'" is really a group of people.
From yourdictionary.com
Conspiracy: a planning and acting together secretly, esp. for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason.
Clearly, all this secretiveness is a conspiracy - I just hope Joseph and Bhavana don't have to start wearing bullet-proof vests and with the additional coverage of armor plates on their backs.

Anonymous said...

This must be the "end justifies the means" argument again. All that has been asked is that the president comes clean with the issues raised. Nothing in the petition states anything to do with other parts of the job of president of the GPSA. Many agree that the issues raised need to be looked at, but if they are being perused at the cost of other established issues how are justified. Wouldn’t communication with council work better? Wouldn’t not having resolution after resolution shoved down the council’s throat, without input be better? These issues are contentious, they are divisive, this is why resolutions or legislation should be collaborative. That way they represent all the graduate students. Not a vocal minority or a vocal majority. Is that what the democratic process is all about? Giving a voice to everyone. If you truly believe this, should the end have to justify the means?

Lastly, do you propose that research that is funded by ST, SRAC is trivial? Is that not what we are here for? I would just ask, “What are you here for?”

Anonymous said...

Danny,
You are absolutely priceless!

I guess that since you choose not to respond to the specific issues regarding the hiring - I'm sorry you can't respond because you are one of the ones who benefit from the hiring policy- that you have to resort to character assassination,and hyperbole.

I gather that you now equate disagreement with treason or murder? We are using the methods prescribed in our Constitution, I guess that is an inconvenient document for you but it is proper and appropriate for someone who refuses to obey the directives of Council.

I have said repeatedly in every posting I have submitted on behalf of other's that I share or support the views expressed.

I will gladly visit with anyone who wishes to have a serious honest discussion, but please take your political games elsewhere.

I choose to deal with facts and results - something evidently you don't seem to much care for.

You remind me of a quote attributed to one of your leaders.

When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler." - Al Gore

Unknown said...

Gene said:
Re: SRAC and ST - the failure to complete these processes in a timely fashion are two of the many reasons we wanted permanent help on staff.

Having gone through the process I need to correct Gene here:
The only interaction a staff person would have with SRAC or ST grants is accepting the applications and then labeling/numbering the folders and the applications (x4 – one original and three anonymous).
Max Joseph and I worked that entire day to make certain we were able to answer all questions, make copies . . . while the applications came in and then we stayed late to get everything numbered (for anonymity).

What eats up the time is first finding grad students willing to VOLUNTEER for this time consuming task and then getting busy students to get the task accomplished.
Please note that the readers / scorers MUST BE GPSA MEMBERS. A non-grad-student staff person could not read and score a single SRAC, much less the 83 we received. There must be three (separate) readers as well, so even if a non-GPSA member could read/score, there would have been another 166 applications that would have needed to be read.
And the fun doesn’t end there. Max got back applications that were not scored or where there were outliers which required rescoring (by the rules).
This is where my application read count went from 30 to more than 50. Good thing there was a grad student in the office who could read and score on the fly.
Please also understand that no award can be granted until the very last scored application is in and said score entered onto a spread sheet.

So going back to Gene’s comment about many reasons: Timely grant applications and hiring non-grad-students instead of grad students for the office are the reasons cited in the recall petition.
What’s not cited in the recall petition that’s really behind this recall?

Anonymous said...

In reference to the 10:40 AM anonymous post:

While I disagree with some of the political direction that GPSA has taken under President Garcia's administration, I have never questioned his dedication to the graduate students or his desire to increase the voice or the effectiveness of GPSA. I still don't. But that is not the issue before us. The issue is his apparent failure to manage the GPSA office and adhere to the council's legal vote.

Once again, let's return to the questions at hand: Why was the SRAC process delayed three weeks (and that is NOT trivial to people who are waiting for funding)? Where is the money that was intended to be used to hire an office employee, and why was the submission of a job description delayed for months? How is the office budget being spent, and why does the council still not have an itemized budget for that money?

While Joseph has been off fighting for causes, noble as they may be, it seems that his administrative duties have been neglected. That's all that I am saying, and I only want answers to the above questions. Yet we have received only excuses and claims of bureaucracy. This is student government, and I think that we all understand bureaucracy. It may account for some delays and confusion, but not to this extent.

If the President or anyone else wants to avoid a recall, then answer these questions and take responsibility for whatever mistakes have been made. Then perhaps we can make this a discussion about the actual issues and not a soap box for personal attacks and ivory tower rhetoric.

All of this is meant only to keep the discussion on track.

Anonymous said...

There seems to be a real tendency in these discussions to conflate the desire of the present GPSA administration to pursue certain goals with the question of whether or not the mandates of the GPSA council and the directives of the GPSA constitution are being followed. Why can't we address each one of one these issues separately and directly?

Although I can only speak for myself I suspect that questioning whether or not GPSA administration is performing its basic functions as outlined in the constitution does not necessarily mean support for hate crimes, a lack of interest in equality and diversity, and support for racism. I for one do not appreciate the assumption that one precludes the other.

Perhaps people who don't agree with Joseph's (and others') focus on some issues and his desire to promote those issues through the GPSA may accept that if they felt that it was being done within the parameters set out for GPSA years ago. In other words, there are procedures and rules and anyone acting on behalf and as a representative of GPSA is expected to comply with those. If they don't agree, there are procedures to change them and they should do that rather than ignore them. So, if the president doesn't think that he should be obligated to comply with decisions by council, then he needs to amend the constitution to so state. (Or get council to change its mind.)

But I digress. My original reason for this post was to request that discussions regarding the recall address the issues presented in that petition: fiscal management, especially re: the grant process; disregard for Council directives re: hiring of office personnel; and compliance with the budget. Similarly that the discussion of the appropriate path and activities of GPSA focus on that.

Anonymous said...

This is a stream of emails sent to me by the Finance Chair and my responses.

I share this so you can read in their own words how they feel about grad students, grants etc.

This is somewhat lengthy but I trust it is worth your time.




Issac,
I'm getting tired of the leaps in judgment you make with absolutely no facts.
For an economist, or faux economist, you are pathetic.

Please try to follow the points.
I will simplify my language so you can keep up.

"Tell me how to get a volunteer to do the work faster. Two weeks does not stop a person from going to a conference".

This has nothing to do with volunteers, the oppressed, the man in the moon or any other false argument you wish to put forth. But since you asked, if you would like for me to show you how to manage an office or run a simple two or three stage project - I think I could find a little time to teach you.

This is about basic simple concepts:

1. Accountability - For example, you as Finance Chair have been either derelict and/or incompetent. I know of no reputable organization that can't get a financial statement prepared monthly - obviously something you either can't do or simply refuse to do.

2. ST and SRAC Readers - You all chose the method of implementation - I'm sorry the way to get things done - or in the case of this administration the way to NOT get things done. If you choose to use volunteers, then you need to plan for these things as volunteers usually take longer for a variety of reasons. I know in previous years, readers received a token payment - $50 to read. I also know the timetable was kept and the students- the ones we represent- got notification in time to take the "crumbs", as you so cavalierly say, to plan for their travel, research etc. for academic purposes. This is a direct benefit to any graduate student. You may ask how I know of the process - I have read for SRAC - Have you? If so, then you should know what needed to be done and as any manager worth his/her salt would have prepared for any and all contingencies. As you so eloquently said in one of your previous missives - I'm sorry emails- this isn't rocket science.

3. You haven't a clue what I care about and it is obvious you don't give a damn for what anyone thinks that doesn't agree with you. As an economist, I expect that one researches the topic before they make accusations, assertions or assumptions. I gather my training differs from yours.

4. My career was originally based in the private sector - almost 20 years - I had my own company that I built myself -7 years- no rich father or government contracts -simply hard work and great customers. It was only after I had done those things that I could afford to work as a public servant- I know of no true public servant that gets rich in government- I certainly haven't. Part of the concept of citizenship, as I understand it, is that all should give back to society. That to me is what public service is all about.

4. I truly resent your patronizing attitude towards the "poor oppressed grant writers". These are our fellow students and you are correct - I do care for them - obviously a great deal more than you do. I care for those who have paid their money to get an education and ask that we as GPSA help them accomplish that goal.

5. You are entitled to your political beliefs and while we do not agree I will not belittle you. You are entirely correct - I do think my taxes are too high - you don't have a clue what my tax bill looks like or where I donate my time and money - so don't preach to me about giving back. I can easily say that I've probably been doing it before you were born.

6. I am clearly and proudly much more moderate than you. I guess that as you assert, my views are in the minority, I should demand some type of tolerance or diversity/affirmative action protection. You talk a good game of fairness and tolerance but you can't even practice what you preach on this minor league level.

7. I am truly surprised that as an economist, you pretend to understand Smith, Friedman, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, Engels,Hegel yet apparently not. (I was a political science major in my undergraduate days in the 70's). So don't try to snow me with the buzzwords or cute jargon - the simple fact as far as I'm concerned is that until you have had to manage a payroll, manage a company, manage a bureaucracy - you don't know squat. Come lecture me when you have something more than theories.

8."The crumbs I wrote about equal $25 when over four-hundred dollars you pay are distributed by 4 undergrads on the SFRB. That is more money than the average SRAC and more than twice as much as the largest ST.If you care about the students you would do your homework and try to change the system that takes money but does not provide services".

Again, you never asked, I have done my homework and I have no problem with how the monies are allocated. I no longer attend athletic events - no time - but I recall how much fun it was to share a good time moment with my fellow students back in the day when I couldn't have afforded a ticket to a Lobo basketball game - in my time we were nationally ranked- it was great fun. I have no quarrel that this opportunity is afforded the students of today. If you don't want to see a game - no worries - student funding provides that opportunity- among many others- for all students. (Athletes are students too by the way).

9. Lastly, I am not now or ever have been a government welfare recipient and I don't do office pot lucks although I can guess that you receive some kind of stipend to go to school - I guess that probably doesn't count because you've "earned" it. I also gather that you have a problem with people who receive welfare as well? Is there anyone you don't hate?

gene henley


Isaac Padilla wrote:
> Tell me how to get a volunteer to do the work faster. Two weeks does
> not stop a person from going to a conference. The president of GPSA
> does not control the lives of the people who are readers. Did you
> volunteer? If you cared you should have been part of the process. You
> care for nothing but yourself and this was obvious the first day I met
> you. We were in the SUB at a banquet and you said your taxes are too
> high. Your career was financed with tax dollars and now you want them
> cut. If you do not like the tax structure why did you work for
> government? Was the private sector far too intimidating for the one who
> toils tirelessly for the poor oppressed grant writers? You hate
> unions, you hate government unless it is blowing something up, face it,
> and you are in the minority in this country because your faux
> conservative ideology is failing. Faux conservatives love to speak the
> words�Smith� or “free markets� but you do not understand basic economic
> theory. Now you study education so you can once again enter the public
> sector. If you hate taxes get a real job and contribute to the tax base
> rather than collecting welfare from the people who work. That is what
> conservatives call people who worked their entire life in government.
>
> The crumbs I wrote about equal $25 when over four-hundred dollars you
> pay are distributed by 4 undergrads on the SFRB. That is more money
> than the average SRAC and more than twice as much as the largest ST.
> If you care about the students you would do your homework and try to
> change the system that takes money but does not provide services. The
> job of the president is much more complicated than you think or you are
> lying to the people who signed the petition. Ask Buck why he did not
> stop an increase in fees, some would equate fees to a tax, Joseph did
> succeed. The person you want to recall was successful in achieving what
> you value, keeping taxes in check. Do some research, you are now a
> grad student not a government welfare recipient spending their day
> eating at office potlucks.
>
>
> gene wrote:
>
>
>
>> Issac,
>> Thank you so much for setting me straight.
>> I understand that to you these may be scraps, but to the folks who have
>> applied for the grants, and whose ability to attend a conference or
>> symposium rests on the "scraps" it may be a little more important.
>>
>> These are who I care about.
>>
>>
>> Isaac Padilla wrote:
>>
>>> It is all about the grants, the scraps is what you care about. Look
>>>
> at
>
>>> the big picture and try to understand the office is bigger than an
>>>
> SRAC
>
>>> or an ST.
>>>
>>> gene wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We should post to the blog.
>>>> But, I can't leave Issac's passionate response go unacknowledged.
>>>> I'll leave this point to ponder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What basic needs are not being addressed?
>>>>
>>>> Ask those who are waiting for their SRAC and ST funding if their needs
>>>> are being met.
>>>> Ask those who paid for the Admin position if their money is being
>>>>
> spent
>
>>>> on what they asked.
>>>> Ad nauseum....
>>>>
>>>> Adriana articulated quite succinctly many of the thoughts others have
>>>> shared.
>>>> Great job Adriana!
>>>>
>>>> Gene
>>>>
>>>> Martin, Adriana wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I will reply within text:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: GPSA List Serv on behalf of Isaac Padilla
>>>>> Sent: Tue 11/13/2007 6:01 PM
>>>>> To: GPSA-L@LIST.UNM.EDU
>>>>> Subject: Re: [GPSA-L] the recall
>>>>>
>>>>> What basic needs are not being addressed? The office is open more than
>>>>> 50 hrs a week, if there was a three quarter staff person working the
>>>>> office would only be open 30 hrs a week and cost 60% more graduate
>>>>> student dollars. An Admin II would leave for lunch and the office
>>>>> would close. The person would leave at three and the office would not
>>>>> open until 8 am the next day. When the office staff was sick the office
>>>>> would not open. There are two students in the office that use it as a
>>>>> space to study and as such, the office is open past 5 and often until 9
>>>>> or 10. Tell me how will a staff person better provide for the needs of
>>>>> grad students?
>>>>>
>>>>> ---What does it matter how many hours a week an office is "open" if
>>>>> you are sitting there doing homework? The basic needs that are not
>>>>> being addressed are the fact that staff were not hired in a timely
>>>>> manner, that we pay exorbitant fees for god knows what, and as a law
>>>>> student, I really have not seen anything that the GPSA has done for us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You want more funding but how can we lobby for more dollars if we are
>>>>> not willing to use our money to fund grad students. I have asked
>>>>> legislators for more dollars and they ask what we do to fund ourselves.
>>>>> Joseph has attended multiple legislative sessions asking for low
>>>>> interest student loans and increased funding for grad students. We will
>>>>> be in Santa Fe 2 or 3 days a week to lobby for students. How much time
>>>>> do you think the opposition will give to this cause? How much time can
>>>>> you VOLUNTEER to increase funding for grad student?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---are you asking how much time "I" can volunteer or how much time can
>>>>> "one" volunteer. Are you suggesting that your lobbying actions are not
>>>>> paid for? If its the former, I don't need to volunteer, that's why I
>>>>> pay you. And for the latter, well, you should be getting paid for your
>>>>> position out of the money we all pay. And speaking of lobbying, how
>>>>> many low interest loans has Joseph "procured" for graduate students
>>>>> during his tenure as President?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> UNM is a Hispanic serving institution and as a result we receive
>>>>> funding designated for Hispanic serving institutions, if we loose the
>>>>> designation we loose funding so diversity directly affects our academic
>>>>> funding. The psychology department was in danger of loosing its
>>>>> accreditation because it was not diverse. Had they lost their
>>>>> accreditation they would loose funding for graduate students.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---What are you saying, "diversity training" will attract more
>>>>> Hispanic students to UNM, thus helping it keep its funding and
>>>>> accreditation? I fail to see the connection. I am "Hispanic", in fact,
>>>>> I am Mexican. What is GPSA doing to attract "Hispanics" to the
>>>>> graduate and professional departments? Is this mandatory training part
>>>>> of that "plan"? Do you think hate crimes are keeping Hispanics away?
>>>>> Last time I checked, we are well-represented at the law school. This
>>>>> is a conscious effort by the law school admissions department, I am
>>>>> sure; so mandatory diversity training is not within GPSA's
>>>>> jurisdiction, but the independent departments, such as the Psychology
>>>>> Dept.
>>>>>
>>>>> Diversity and hate crimes are issues the President of UNM asked our
>>>>> body to address so if Joseph is wasting our time then the President is
>>>>> wasting our time. Why do you not send him a letter asking the President
>>>>> of the university to stop wasting time?
>>>>>
>>>>> ---I'd be happy to. Why is the UNM President pushing HIS agenda on the
>>>>> GPSA. The GPSA is there to represent the needs of the graduate and
>>>>> professional students, not to do the bidding of the UNM President.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Joseph helped set up a benefits committee that met over the summer to
>>>>> improve health care coverage for grad students and the majority of the
>>>>> people who served on the committee are his biggest supporters. Ask the
>>>>> chair of the committee.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---And our healthcare benefits improved how?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There was never a call for a required diversity course; it was a call
>>>>> for diversity requirement. You are studying to be a lawyer so I would
>>>>> assume you can understand and interpret nuance in words. If a dept
>>>>> already addresses diversity in its curriculum nothing would change. The
>>>>> most this resolution would require is to change existing courses if the
>>>>> dept does not address this need. Once again the President of the
>>>>> University has made diversity one of his priorities, Joseph was
>>>>> following his lead.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---What are the proposed courses that would satisfy this "diversity
>>>>> requirement" and why wasn't it put to an open and free vote? The law
>>>>> school has courses that on their face would satisfy this requirement
>>>>> "Gender and the Law" for example, but I don't see the need for this
>>>>> course to be mandatory. I am not taking it because I have many other
>>>>> courses I'd like to take instead and they have nothing to do with
>>>>> gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Hopefully,
>>>>> Constitutional Rights will take care of that "requirement" because I
>>>>> don't have the time or the money to take a class for which I have no
>>>>> need. (Uh, I AM Mexican, have many gay friends and relatives, I am in
>>>>> an inter-racial and inter-faith marriage).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The resolution was not passed in a back room and it was not spearheaded
>>>>> by "anonymous." It was introduced to the entire council so the
>>>>> democratic process could work. Those that supported this did not send
>>>>> an anonymous email; if it is important enough to fight for something
>>>>> then a person should not fear attaching their name to the fight.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---If it was not passed in a backroom, why is it causing so much
>>>>> outcry NOW? It was obviously not open enough. This is not just MY
>>>>> problem. Just read the blog, listen to your constituents. THEY ARE NOT
>>>>> SATISFIED WITH THE JOB THE GPSA IS DOING. I personally do not know
>>>>> Joseph and have no personal vendetta against him, I just want what I
>>>>> pay for and want transparency in the GPSA administration.

Shannon McCoy-Hayes said...

Danny Said....

So going back to Gene’s comment about many reasons: Timely grant applications and hiring non-grad-students instead of grad students for the office are the reasons cited in the recall petition.

It seems we are all still forgetting that the reason listed for recall is the question

(1) Has the current President of GPSA carried out his Council's multiple directives regarding hiring of permenant office staff. Yes or no?

(2) Have the funds collected through the increase in GPSA fees for this purpose been used for this purpose? Yes or no?

That's all. No name calling, no secret agendas, no excuses.

Anonymous said...

Following up on some of Ilanit's comments(thank you for bringing up some fact-finding questions):
I was on the Council 2005-2006, 2006-2007. When we increased the fees (correct me if I'm wrong, Buck) it was only an increase up to what had previously been approved by the entire student body. The INTENTION of the fee increase was to hire a full-time office staff person and to increase the PB funds, but I don't believe that the increase meant that a office staff person MUST be hired. That it was not done the next year was due to some budgeting issues and also some problems with the long-term sustainability of hiring using the mechanism originally intended.

However, the problem that seems to be most disconcerting is if the Council passed a budget (I don't know details because I was not present at that meeting) explicitly setting aside money for a full-time office staff (non-student) and that money was used for something else or not used at all for that purpose. That is a serious breakdown in the way our GPSA government runs. Has anyone considered using the Court of Review to solve this issue instead of or in addition to a recall? I believe this is one of the situtations that we anticipated when the Court of Review was created.....

Kathryn
Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program
PhD student
Former GPSA Council Rep

Lissa said...

"The person creating controversies here is a nutjob who's been ignored as mentally imbalanced on other forums. Save your energies."

It is extremely offensive that you would suggest that people who are labeled as having a mental illness have nothing to contribute and should be ignored. I am not sure who you are referring to however again I feel you should (even in this forum of venting) be cognizant of the societal implications of this type of prejudice and stigma.

Anonymous said...

This was a test and Gene did what I expected. I wrote those emails in private to see if you would expose private communications. You do not care about people’s privacy unless it is to protect anonymous. If you are willing to post private emails from me, I would expect you to now out the anonymous person you are protecting. Thank you for proving what I expected.

In addition, if you are indeed an expert in mediation, and GPSA has given dispute resolution $3000, why did you choose to use a tactic that would divide GPSA? If mediation is not sought by the expert how are we to expect other people to use a service that cost thousands of dollars in dues.

Guess who anonymous is in this blogpost?

Anonymous said...

Gene, next time you post a series of emails, and I anticipate anonymous is next because it has been proven you do not care about privacy, try reformatting the document because it makes it easier to read. The only people that will wade through all the >>>> are those people who will not change their mind. Look forward to reading the other private emails.

Roshan Rammohan said...

Anonymous is very smart. Applause!

(I really just wanted to subscribe, and blogger lets me do that only if I comment.)

Anonymous said...

And back to the issue again? Please?

Kathryn asked a good question. What could the court do here, and has anyone talked to them?

Anonymous said...

Look in the constitution.

ARTICLE VII Court of Review

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Unlike you, I am not concerned if you wish to remain anonymous. I care about what you say not who you are.

If someone sends me an email and asks for it to remain confidential I will honor it, if they do not request such treatment, I feel free to share it with any and all if I choose.

I can not speak to this concept of "outing" because I was never hiding in the first place.

Re: divisive of Council - I see nothing divisive to Council regarding a recall of the President. This President's actions - inactions constitute the grounds for a recall and more than enough people have signed the petitions to exercise that right under the Constitution.

If you wish to "trap" me I'll make it easy for you - simply ask me.

Last point - instead of obfuscation and cute little games - just answer the questions we have been asking -it really is quite simple - you might try it sometime.

Gene

Anonymous said...

Kathryn said...
"The INTENTION of the fee increase was to hire a full-time office staff person and to increase the PB funds, but I don't believe that the increase meant that a office staff person MUST be hired"

Actually it did. The original legislation was reread to Council at the Nov 3rd meeting by the Council Chair in response to a question for a rep and it specifically states a 3/4 time person. All of these documents are available. The decision, the description of that person, the multiple re-ratification of the decision to raise our fees to specifically hire a 3/4 person is in the public record. There is no ambiguity in the direction - money raised WILL go to hire the 3/4 time person. Our fees were raised to hire this person and only this person.

Anonymous said...

Don't write private emails to Gene. If you do, he may reveal it in public. If you must keep it confidential, write in caps, CONFIDENTIAL: NOT TO BE POSTED ON A BLOG OR A LISTSERV.

Cheryl said...

Since Danny posted on the GPSA List-serve, I will reply here as well (and post to the blog).

I have been unavailable, and just now catching up on reading the blog, in which I find interesting that the majority of people want to stay on task and find out why Joseph has not complied with Council directives in a timely manner. Yet, some of Joseph's Executive Board (e-board) are crying "foul" and trying to divert the real issues of Joseph's non-performance to issues of inequality. The substantive issues are not going away . . . you've diverted Council, and now the people, for far too long.

In answer to Danny:

Danny stated: Right now, there are two people working at this office more than a combined 50 hours (although we're each being paid for only 20 hours) . . . In most days, both Max and I are here - even though only one of us is getting paid.

Cheryl responds: Which is it? Are you getting paid to work in the GPSA Office, or not? Additionally, Joseph has told me numerous times that a ¾-time person is not needed because he is in the office most of the time . . . so why now are we paying you and Max a total of 40 hours, plus Joseph's 20+? With a 30-hour staff person, and Joseph working 20+ hours in the office, that should be sufficient. Why should we pay two, 20-hour appointments? Are you saying we now need 60 hours of coverage? And, how much of that coverage overlaps--it sounds like you're all in there at the same time. (Also, I hold Joseph personally responsible for forcing me to vote against you & Max, both of whom I like. If he’d just hired the person as directed, we would not be having this conversation.)

Danny stated: When a grad student shows up needing help, we bend over backwards trying to help her/him. Today Joseph and I helped a woman about our age (you and me, not Joseph's) who wanted to return to school after a ten-year absence (to raise a family). We didn't have all the answers, but we gave her some ideas on how to proceed, including some contact information and what we knew about general UNM policies. Do you think a non-grad student would have been able to help this woman? Would a low-level, low-pay, high-turnover staff person really care about a grad students' problems like we do?

Cheryl responds: Yes, I do think a non-grad student has access to the same resources as you and Joseph, and I do think a staff person can really care about a graduate student's problems like you do. It's a matter of who is hired to do the job. As you know, I work for a program that brings UNM students back to finish their undergraduate degrees--most of the persons who help these students are staff, not fellow students, and they all care. Additionally, who says this person will be high turnover . . . we know Master's students will turn over in 2 years, but a staff person could hold this position indefinitely. I believe that ASUNM's staff person has been in that position for at least 7, if not 9 years! (The Presidency is a high turnover position as well, since it is, at most, a two-year post.)

Danny states: As to the SRAC - we just received the last of the SRAC packet a this afternoon. Max is frustrated as hell, but these are grad students who have _volunteered_ to read and evaluate SRAC applications.

Cheryl responds: Whose idea was it not to pay readers?! Did Joseph and/or the e-board decide this? Or was Max acting as a maverick, which I find hard to believe? This idea was never brought to council, not that it needed to be . . . or maybe it should have been?! It's a small amount that has been paid in the past (I think I received $50 for reading) and it helps put a little money in graduate students' pockets, while they get valuable information about the process for when they apply for these grants, it gives them incentive to return the packets on time, which helps the graduate students who applied to get a timely answer. However, I've also heard that the packets did not go to the readers in a timely fashion . . . is this true? Was the problem that Max had to juggle his responsibilities as the SRAC Chair and working in the office? By the way, did he get paid for both jobs?

Danny stated: I'm really sorry that you can't see that all this is about is getting back at Joseph for all the progressive stuff we've been doing - like the an anti-war resolution (as one who has attended more than her share of peace rallies, I would hope you can appreciate us supporting the peace and justice center - because that's where the idea came from - through me), a hate crimes resolution, a diversity resolution, workforce safety, family friendly, record level attendance at GPSA Council meetings.

Cheryl responds: As you know, I support peace and justice (I am very vocal about my opposition to President Bush and the Iraq Occupation.), which is why I was forced by Joseph to "abstain" from the Iraq vote in Council. It was brought up in the Council meeting without any prior notification, which forced me to abstain because I had no time to read the resolution while listening to Council comments. And, I had no time to take the issue back to my department to see what the overall consensus was regarding this issue. Because of my personal thoughts and feelings, I would rather have voted for the resolution, but because of how it was forced upon me, I would rather have voted against it. My vote for recall is not about “getting back at Joseph for all the progressive stuff.” It’s about his refusal to follow Council directives.

Danny states: . . . we even supported your funding request. And if you think that it would have passed without Joseph's support, please understand that he controls the agenda and he could have just as easily kept the issue from being discussed, much less voted on (Council Chair submits, e-board approves - we're the e-board).

Cheryl responds: Danny, I’m surprised at this comment! Is that a veiled threat that Joseph will not continue to support the Graduate & Professional Student Dispute Resolution Organization if I vote for the recall? An organization that supports all graduate students in need, is (wo)manned by volunteer graduate students, and, which was pre-dated by the Benefits Committee putting forth the Mediation resolution, which was passed? Or, are you saying, Joseph really doesn't care about graduate students' conflicts with faculty, staff, fellow graduate students, etc., and he (and his e-board) was just voting for funding dispute resolution so I'd owe him a later favor?
And, what's with the egocentric comment, "we're the e-board"? So, in effect you're saying that Council doesn't count, just Joseph and his e-board, who run roughshod over the rest of us. Is that the same group that came to the decision not to pay SRAC & ST readers; and the same group that refused to hire a ¾-time person (as directed by Council); and the same group who has not provided Council with the 07-08 budget, as all Presidents in the past have done? Well, I think the people are speaking up and saying, "You will no longer run roughshod over us! We have a voice!"

Danny stated: As to the two assistantship positions, we had the votes at the last meeting and we could have pushed it as easily as we did Christopher's funding request, but we didn't because we didn't think it was fair to do so without a true democratic process.

Cheryl responds: Isaac introduced this as a Bill, which, to my understanding, is discussed in one meeting and voted on in the next. And, it was introduced knowing that the Council, again, would ask Joseph where he is in the process of hiring the ¾-time person. Are you, again, stating that the e-board runs GPSA with no thought to what Council directs? Council, who represent the people? And, that, as usual, you can just ram down our throats whatever you wish?

Danny states: Which was not the case when the budget was passed that included the ¾ time position. That was at the end of a 6 hour marathon meeting and the position was passed as part of a budget that had to pass in order for anyone to get funding - with an attendance lower than you're now seeing. How much of a mandate is that?

Cheryl responds: As you know, that is not the whole truth. This ¾-time person has been discussed in Council meetings for about a year and a half . . . nothing was surprising in that meeting related to the ¾-time Office Assistant.

Danny, I wish that Joseph and his e-board would discuss the facts of the recall, instead of trying to divert our attention to issues that have nothing to do with the recall. And, I don’t like being at odds with you. At the same time, I will not be manhandled into a subservient position.

Respectfully, Cheryl

Cheryl said...

Geronimo, next time you attack a person, do your research first so that you get the facts straight, which clearly you did not. Also, best-case scenario, it’s taken Joseph 5 months (worse case, about a year and a half) to get a job description into HR. This is not bureaucracy at work, it’s Joseph’s refusal to follow Council directives.

Roshan Rammohan said...

Why should make a difference what one says in private ?
If its relevant and in context and you can stand behind what you are saying, it shouldn't matter.

Yep. Keep everything public. Stop whining.
It's just plain dumb to expect confidentiality between opponents.

Anonymous said...

Best part of this deal. Mr. Joe Garcia is trying to intimidate people into not signing the recall petition, because that would go against the Latino agenda he is pushing. Thats priceless....

Shannon McCoy-Hayes said...

Anonymous said...
Best part of this deal. Mr. Joe Garcia is trying to intimidate people into not signing the recall petition, because that would go against the Latino agenda he is pushing. Thats priceless....

I say: Folks, let's stop right here. This is not relevent. President Garcia is doing a great job trying to further diversity and inclusion on campus and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

The issue remains, as I am sure most of you will agree; Council directed a GPSA President to do something and the GPSA President didn't get it done. The fact is that this President is highly succesful in the political arena of his office, and not sucessful at the inner workings of his office. GPSA and the graduate students they represent have THE RIGHT to decide whether or not this President is doing his job. Many of us have reiterated this question but here it is again; Did President Garcia carry out the Council's directives. Yes or no?

Just so that everyone knows, I both voted for President Garcia and signed the recent petition to recall President Garcia.

Anonymous said...

Whoa, you are joking right. He trys to intimidate people from exercising their rights under the GPSA Constitution and that is acceptable because he "is doing a great job trying to further diversity and inclusion on campus" You have to be kidding. I suppose Hugo's thugs probably say the same thing.

Anonymous said...

The Court of Review shall have original jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this Constitution or any Bylaws established under this Constitution. The Court shall have any other appellate jurisdiction as the Council may determine in its Bylaws 1. Appellate Jurisdiction: In addition to the Court’s original jurisdiction as stated in the GPSA Constitution, the Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction to hear: a. All matters arising under all Council Codes, including, but not limited to, review of any award of GPSA funds to an organization or individual for consistency with the GPSA Constitution, Bylaws and Codes. b. All matters arising from activities of any Council Ad Hoc or Standing Committee. c. All acts of the President, Council Chair or Representatives of the GPSA when he or she is acting in her or his official capacity and which the Court would not otherwise have original jurisdiction to hear.

Again, has anyone considered a Court of Review? Or is it so obvious that the President has neglected his job that it is pointless to go to the Court of Review?

Shannon McCoy-Hayes said...

Kathryn said...
Again, has anyone considered a Court of Review? Or is it so obvious that the President has neglected his job that it is pointless to go to the Court of Review?

Reiterating Kathryn's suggestion about considering the Court of Review.

Anonymous said...

anonymous said ..."Whoa, you are joking right. He trys to intimidate people from exercising their rights under the GPSA Constitution and that is acceptable because he "is doing a great job trying to further diversity and inclusion on campus" You have to be kidding. I suppose Hugo's thugs probably say the same thing."

I assume the "he" you are referring to is Joseph Garcia and the rights he is trying to keep from us through intimidation is the right to petition for a recall. (If it's something else, then you need to clarify)

What has he done to intimidate us regarding the recall? Other than his initial post regarding his inaction concerning the hiring of office staff on which we are all commenting he has remained silent on this blog and on the listserv. A number of other people have tried to distract us all from the questions raised by the recall, but unless Joseph Garcia communicates directly (and publicly) that there will be repercussions if someone signs the recall petition how is he intimidating us? Are we assuming that comments made by other people are really Joseph Garcia's - that they are nothing more than his mouthpiece? Hardly seems fair to either President Garcia or those other graduate students, who I'm sure have minds of their own.

Again, both sides of this debate need to focus on the issues at hand and refrain from irrelevant comments.

Roshan Rammohan said...

"those other graduate students, who I'm sure have minds of their own.

Again, both sides of this debate need to focus on the issues at hand and refrain from irrelevant comments."

Like this one.

But who's to decide whats relevant ? Hmm.. grad students with minds of their own, maybe ?

Anonymous said...

Yeah Roshan you're right. I should not try to dictate or even suggest what is relevant to graduate students who are supposed to be adults.
My mistake.

Anonymous said...

Danny states: . . . we even supported your funding request. And if you think that it would have passed without Joseph's support, please understand that he controls the agenda and he could have just as easily kept the issue from being discussed, much less voted on (Council Chair submits, e-board approves - we're the e-board).

Now we've moved from accusing those who wish to openly discuss the policies, advocacy goals, and practices of the President Garcia’s administration as being part of a “lynch mob” to even more pernicious threats of withholding funding and support for those who don’t agree with the administration.

“We are the e-board.”

A justice, sitting on the Court of Appeal, is now threatening members and groups by suggesting that their priorities, projects, and interests may not make it to the table if they don’t play ball with Joseph Garcia.

What a naked and disgusting threat. And both remarkably telling as to your perspective on the representative duties that Joseph and the e-board have in regards to the graduate and professional student population.

An administration, need I mind you, that serve at the PLEASURE of the graduate students.

Your Machiavellian tactics and threats have no place in our organization. You should do the honorable thing and resign. Immediately. And President Garcia, if you chose to remain silent on Danny’s actions, then you are equally culpable. Please publicly repudiate Danny’s comments. He represents your administration and its governing practices. Is this how you intend to run things? Don't oppose us or question our practices or you won’t get a seat at the table in the future?

Anonymous said...

I would like to point out that Gene Henley, one of the leaders of the recall effort, specifically related the issue of the recall to the Hate Crime Resolution, Diversity Class Issue, and Iraq War Resolution in the cover article of the Lobo yesterday by claiming that the majority of his constituents felt these were not issues appropriate for GPSA to handle. Thus, it is now hard to deny that these issues are not simply "distractions" to the real issues at hands, rather part of the motivations behind the recall.

Anonymous said...

Hello all,
I have heard from Max regarding SRAC reader stipends--they were not volunteers, as Danny stated.
See below for quote from Max:

"All SRAC readers will receive a $50 stipend. Their information has been submitted to the student accounting office which will
process the payments. The stipends will be credited directly to students' accounts."
From Cheryl (I had trouble signing on?!)

Anonymous said...

I wonder why Joseph Garcia is being recalled when the issue about 3/4 staff has not been fully discussed even once at the council meeting. The council chair explicitly asked council members to talk about the issue when we come to the legislation. The legislation has not come up. It will come up in Decemeber.

It is funny the leaders of the dispute resolution are the disputors. Why have you not asked for mediation?

It is also funny that no one mentioned before during the debate about anti-discrimination that grad students did not think it was useful. It is also funny because none of the resolutions were brought forward by Jo Garcia. They were presented by individual members of GPSA council:)

It is funny that the call for recall is on grounds of SRAC grant announcement being 10 days late.

Why have none of you even thought of sitting together for dialogue to express your issues? Why are you so confrontational?

I personally, will never send anyone in the way of dispute resolution committee. It is a useless group and the members are hypocrites.

Let us get it straight. You want to install a republican president on GPSA head. Is Jason Thomas, who has been intimidating a number of people, a republican? Why do you Jason want to be the President? Don't you know you will not have the support unless you are republican?

Frankly, I find this whole recall thing very amusing and arguments naive. Jospeh Garcia has managed to stir the hornet's nest real well. Grin... Good job, Jo!

Anonymous said...

I wonder why Joseph Garcia is being recalled when the issue about 3/4 staff has not been fully discussed even once at the council meeting. The council chair explicitly asked council members to talk about the issue when we come to the legislation. The legislation has not come up. It will come up in Decemeber.

It is funny the leaders of the dispute resolution are the disputors. Why have you not asked for mediation?

It is also funny that no one mentioned before during the debate about anti-discrimination that grad students did not think it was useful. It is also funny because none of the resolutions were brought forward by Jo Garcia. They were presented by individual members of GPSA council:)

It is funny that the call for recall is on grounds of SRAC grant announcement being 10 days late.

Why have none of you even thought of sitting together for dialogue to express your issues? Why are you so confrontational?

I personally, will never send anyone in the way of dispute resolution committee. It is a useless group and the members are hypocrites.

Let us get it straight. You want to install a republican president on GPSA head. Is Jason Thomas, who has been intimidating a number of people, a republican? Why do you Jason want to be the President? Don't you know you will not have the support unless you are republican?

Frankly, I find this whole recall thing very amusing and arguments naive. Jospeh Garcia has managed to stir the hornet's nest real well. Grin... Good job, Jo!

Anonymous said...

I was told the President skins live kittens and the people behind his recall fuck goats. This is a sad state of affairs when issues of importance are ignored as trivial matters dominate discourse. Fuck GPSA the organization is loosing all credibility.

Roshan Rammohan said...

" I would like to point out that Gene Henley, one of the leaders of the recall effort, specifically related the issue of the recall to the Hate Crime Resolution, Diversity Class Issue, and Iraq War Resolution in the cover article of the Lobo yesterday by claiming that the majority of his constituents felt these were not issues appropriate for GPSA to handle. Thus, it is now hard to deny that these issues are not simply "distractions" to the real issues at hands, rather part of the motivations behind the recall."

Does it matter ?
X might even want to recall Garcia cos X is a white supremacist at heart. Or that Y for no reason likes to induce chaos every once in a while.
You can't inquisition everyone's inner motive.

What's the petitionists have laid ON the table seems to be constitutionally sufficient, as an instrument of exercising public opinion.

Personally, I don't deny it. The Iraq war resolution, Diversity course and the Hate Crime resolution are the main reasons I signed the petition. These are none of GPSA's business.

And judging by the growing numbers that are signing the petition, the mandate is clear.

p.s. thumb rule: In a democratic set up, if you intend to bend rules at the top, at least keep the population happy or make sure the majority truly agrees with you. Else, eh.. face it.

Anonymous said...

>When in the past has a sitting State Senator or a sitting City Councilor attended a GPSA meeting?

Well, I invited Sen. Cisco McSorley to our 2006 (I think it was April) Council meeting to present him a plaque because he had spear-headed passing legislation at the Roundhouse we requested to increase graduate and professional student access to state low income child-care assistance. He was rather touched at the meeting when we gave him the plaque.

>When in the past has a UNM Vice-President prepared and delivered a thirty minute presentation to GPSA?

Does a Provost (Executive VP) trump a VP? The Provost came to a meeting in 2004-2005, and addressed the Council. The Dean of OGS has spoken to the Council in recent history, as have other UNM officials.

So, it's not that new of an initiative on our part.

> We can create an office that is a strong advocate for graduate students and a place they come to when they have problems with the administration, faculty, advisors, committee chairs, staff and financial aid or any other concerns they might have on and off campus.

Again, how is this new? I and other graduate students have done all of these things in years past. I've helped with theses, sat in when graduate students met with their department chairs, walked folks over to the administrator they needed to talk to and directly fixed their problem, etc.

> Garcia’s choice to lead rather than rollover created enemies because his vision and achievements deviate from the “way we have always done it”. The status quo becomes ingrained when people who lack vision struggle to come to grips there fading power, and this is the face of the opposition. The pathetic accepts the status quo; the leader changes it.

Hmm, previous GPSAers lack vision. Look at the GPSA vision statement, from the spring of 2005. It should still be on the website. That was an attempt by me to distill the voices of graduate students across campus to figure out ways to address the problems facing our colleagues at UNM. We identified OGS as the largest problem at the time. I told the Regents and the Provost a number of times, until they paid attention. The Provost's OGS Taskforce in 2005-2006 directly addressed the problems stemming from OGS at the time. Clearly, the initiatives of the past year and a half represent the first time the GPSA has had vision in a while.

>If students want GPSA to digress and once again become nothing more than a piggy bank, then vote to recall Joseph. Those who are working to elevate the office will leave the debate because a GRD, ST, and SRAC grants are trivial compared to the potential that must exist in an organization lead by graduate and professional students.

See the above. Knowing what the GPSA has done is useful so things don't fall apart every year or two when new leadership and ideas come in in the natural flow of our organization.

I honestly believe that a permanent, or at least semi-permanent, staff member can serve the GPSA better than yearly or biyearly students, even graduate students. Keeping ourselves going, year to year, with student office-workers has been a sturdy crutch with regular stumbles for the GPSA, as students graduate and move on. We can do better.

Council thought so, voted affirmatively, and continued to vote affirmatively for a year and a half now.

Anonymous said...

I can't understand why anyone would think that getting a $50 stipend for reading a lot of grants is anything but volunteer work.

Anonymous said...

I heard that Joseph, nobody to be trifled with, will take on every one who signed the recall petition in the south lot this Sunday at high noon - one at a time.
That's bare fists folks.
I also heard the spectacle will be broadcast live on youtube.

Anonymous said...

I withdraw my call for the Court of Review. Obviously some of the Court of Review members would have to step down if it came to that. And I think the issue is a conflict of some people believing that the GPSA president is not fulfilling his duties. I guess the Court of Review would only come into play if the president of the GPSA challenged the recall or something.

Unknown said...

This morning (11/15/07) President Garcia requested one or more advisory opinion(s) from the Court of Review by submitting five questions to the Court for our consideration. The questions generally inquire as to which branch of government has the authority and responsibility for employing office staff and administering grants.

We on the Court are in the process of determining whether, and perhaps how, we can address these questions. However, we have not yet met and will not likely begin to address the many preliminary issues facing the Court until early next week. In any case, if we find that we are able to address these issues, we are required to issue our non-binding advisory opinion no later than 30 days from today.

I am posting this message solely to keep those who are interested informed of what is happening with respect to the Court. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at allisojo@law.unm.edu. Thanks.

Josh Allison,
Chief Justice, GPSA Court of Review

Anonymous said...

Jo Garcia has personally communicated intimidations w/regard to the recall.

Anonymous said...

"Jo Garcia has personally communicated intimidations w/regard to the recall."


Care to elaborate or give any details? You have every right to protect your anonymity but if you are going to make an accusation such as this you really should provide some context.

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of attack e-mails, which I am disregarding in making my choice. I am disgusted by the lack of discussion on the real issues and the hateful personal attacks that have been brought out. Some people have a problem with the controversial legislation the GPSA president has pushed for (anti-hate, anti-discrimination, anti-Iraq War), and while I don't necessarily like some of the things he has done, Council did it too, so he can't really be "blamed" entirely for these things. And this is by no means an issue of race or discrimination when the issues are really considered.

My main problem is that he was given money by Council specifically for hiring a 3/4 time office staff (who is non-student) and he did not follow through. This was voted on by council and fees were raised for this so there would be continuity in the office staff from term-to-term, which was not being fulfilled by having grad students and undergrad work-study students staffing the office alone. If he disagreed with Council's directive, he should have opposed it by formal means and if that failed he would still have to comply. He did not. He can't just decide that he doesn't like what Council has ordered and not comply; it is equivalent to the president of the U.S. being given a certain amount of money to spend on the Dept. of Education and deciding he would rather use it for the Iraq War (of course not of this level). This has the potential to destroy the GPSA (we have checks and balances like any other representative democracy) because he has essentially become a dictator in taking this power.

I haven't interacted with Joseph much other than in GPSA Council last year, but from what I have seen, I have no problems with his commitment to the job and he has an honest desire to help Grad and Prof students. Although I don't necessarily agree with some of the controversial legislation he pushed for, I still applaud him for being involved and trying to make UNM better; that is more than most people are doing. It is merely because he openly disregarded a Council directive and used the money incorrectly (and knowingly) that I am going to support the recall of the GPSA President.

With regards to the Court of Review, I am happy that the they are involved. However, I wonder what will happen with conflict of interest and bias in the case (I believe some of the justices are very involved in the issue). Additionally, I don't believe their decisions about who is responsible for hiring will do anything to stop the recall because a president can be recalled without any reason at all (but the president could use their opinion to claim that it was not his responsibility to hire office staff). Just an observation on the situation.

This will truly be a test of whether all the work done to "clean up" the GPSA constitution and by-laws in the past years by Council was enough. Hope it holds up to this conflict!

Anonymous said...

The GPSA looks ridiculous. The undergrads are more capable of organization, coherence, transparency, and, gee... they vote in their elections rather than abstain from running for office (Joseph ran unopposed) and they even vote during their elections (how many grads voted in the last election?). Now we have a council full of divisive children who are trying to remove the elected president from office because they weren't smart enough to run against him in the first place. Here's an idea: 1. Choose a candidate, 2. Create a Platform, 3. Campaign, 4. Vote during the election. Nope. Instead we have folks calling for a recall, a special election, etc., wasting grads' money, wasting grads' time. Great job council.

Anonymous said...

Jason, I was told you are readying yourself to run in a special election in January once Joseph is recalled. Too bad you weren't smart enough to run during the actual election. You say "I just would like to know that we still participate in a process that is as democratic and representative as possible." Do you think it's democratic and representative to recall the elected president so that you can get yourself a special election? I am suspicious that the recall is the only "solution" offered. Suddenly our own systems of mediation, court of review, censure, or even--dare I say it--discussion, are inadequate on the last day of the fall session? Please. What a pathetic attempt to challenge the basics of democracy and install yourselves in a special election. I suggest you and the others who are gearing up for the spot you hope to vacate come clean and let us all know of your intentions.

Anonymous said...

Should OLIT even be a voting member?

Anonymous said...

Oh! I get it! I see how it works! We recall Joseph, then in a special election vote in Jason or Gene, then give them a month or so, then I can call for another recall, knowing that since the numbers that voted in the special election were low, I'd need only a handful of people to recall them and install a new "more representative" president. And so on ad infinitum--Wow! What a fun and democratic game! And it can go on as long as all those GPSA funds are available to fund special elections. Plus, there's the added bonus that there's no dialogue about this in council meetings--just listservs, dark rooms, and blogs. It also means council members won't have to get any real business done for the grads--just spend the next few months arm wresting by email and throwing insults and accusations. This sounds like a great idea, thanks so much Gene for your planning efforts!

Anonymous said...

Re: Wish I Was an Undergrad, Suspicious, Go! Go! Go! GPSA Inaction Committee, et. al.:

You may hurl as many insults as you wish, you may obfuscate all you want but in the end the questions still remain unanswered and quite frankly as long as they remain unanswered, the recall effort will continue to grow.

I personally have no interest in leading this organization. If I had, I would have been a candidate. This has nothing to do with the person who is President – this has everything to do with what this President has done or has failed to do. I am personally involved because, since my first day on Council, I have supported was a more permanent professional organization. I would like to see continuity and some stability within GPSA staff. The Council, both before my appointment and since, has also shared that view – by a majority vote at least two times. You speak of democracy but it appears these are merely words in your lexicon – you certainly don’t seem to practice it. It is not the right of the President to refuse to implement that which Council has passed.

If this President or any President for that matters, refuses to comply with Council directives, according to our Constitution – yes the democratic document we all agree to abide by, even the President, - we have two options, impeachment, which is entertained by the Council, or what I would consider the more representative and certainly more democratic process – if you believe in full participation of all the people – a recall.

To remind you once again, the questions asked that remain unaddressed and 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.

If as you believe that such actions and inactions are what you want to see in your leadership then simply vote against recall– that is your right.

If you share a belief that the rules should be obeyed and willful violation of same is unacceptable then vote to recall this President.

Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

"Do you think it's democratic and representative to recall the elected president so that you can get yourself a special election?"

"F. Removal

1. Impeachment procedures. A motion to consider removal, seconded, a simple majority passes that motion at a duly called GPSA Council meeting. The GPSA Council Chair shall then call a special meeting no sooner than one nor later than two calendar weeks after the meeting at which the motion was made and passed. A two-thirds vote of the Council Representatives present at that special meeting is required for removal.

2. Recall procedures. A petition with GPSA members signatures numbering thirty percent of the total number of votes counted at the most recent general election must be presented at a regular GPSA Council meeting in order to schedule a recall. The recall election shall be publicized and shall occur within 20 days of the Council meeting at which the petition was presented. A simple majority of those voting in the recall election is required for removal."
"Suddenly our own systems of mediation, court of review, censure, or even--dare I say it--discussion, are inadequate on the last day of the fall session? Please. What a pathetic attempt to challenge the basics of democracy and install yourselves in a special election."

Lets see thats a pretty good list of the democratic things GPSA can do. Fortunately for the rest of us RECALL is also a democratic solution discussed in the GPSA Constitution. Let me break down how this works for you recall complainers. Its pretty simple really.

1. You have a president that is malfeasent in office or just pisses off enough of his constitutients.

2. A recall petition is passed which in this case only needs 134 signatures to intiate a recall election. 30% of 445 votes = 133 signatures.

3. Now under this democratic process, each person gets one vote. Keep the Prez or dump him.

4. Under this democracy the majority wins. So if you want to send the message that malfeasence in office is acceptable, convince enough people to agree with you and vote the same way.

5. Pretty simple democracy really. Every person gets a vote, most votes wins.....It would be nice if everybody that is complaining about this Recall being "undemocratic" would actually read up on democracy. Nowhere in the definition of democracy does it speak about being nice, being legitmate in your reasons, or going to mediation first. DUH! The beauty of an egalitarian democracy is that officers serve at the will of the people, not the people serve the will of the officer. SO its simple if Joesph and company can convince enough people that he deserves to stay then he stays. If he can't well then to bad. For some reason, Buck was able to make it twice around the horn.

Stop complaining that it is undemocratic to have a recall election. It is democracy at its finest to petition and vote. Maybe you should try explaining to people why they shouldnt vote to kick Garcia out because by the last count I heard there were more than enough signatures to have an election.

~Blair

Roshan Rammohan said...

Blair,
Great email to start the week!
Thanks!

[Whistling away to the lab]
-Rr

Anonymous said...

Blair said: "Lets see thats a pretty good list of the democratic things GPSA can do[systems of mediation, court of review, censure, or even--dare I say it--discussion]. Fortunately for the rest of us RECALL is also a democratic solution discussed in the GPSA Constitution."

Why are you not interested in the other options Blair? Not as exciting? Require thought and deliberation?

Anonymous said...

Gene wrote "I am personally involved because, since my first day on Council, I have supported was a more permanent professional organization. I would like to see continuity and some stability within GPSA staff." I see now! Gene doesn't think grad students are professional enough... We need "adult supervision" in the office. We need that 3/4 position--the unelected student--to lead the elected bunch of juveniles. Thanks for clarifying Gene!

Anonymous said...

Hi Buckner--I see you referring specifically to the recall petition. Can you please post this to the blog as many of us who are on the council have not been a part of this particular interest group, so we have not seen the recall petition specifically. Thank you!

gene said...

Suspicious,

Just answer the questions!

Gene

Anonymous said...

Explain more about your intentions Gene. Non-elected persons seem to figure importantly in all of your objectives. I'll respond as quickly as I can with what littl information I have:

On point 1- I am told the SRACS were a full ten days late, and while this is not the best case scenario, it certainly doesn't rise to a recall of the president!

On point 2- Per Buckner, "We [GPSA under Buckner]had not sufficiently budgeted for that staff person. The issue was not over whether to hire someone; it was a matter of insufficient funds. The intent of the Council to hire a staff person was clear; the underbudgeting was also clear. No one is blaming Joseph for the fact that we were unable to hire someone that year." You also repeat again that Joseph purposely did not hire because he specifically did not agree with the council. Where does this information come from? Your intuition? I little crystal ball?

On point 3- Are you accusing Joseph of embezzlement?

Anonymous said...

Blair wrote: "Nowhere in the definition of democracy does it speak about being nice, being legitmate in your reasons, or going to mediation first." So in addition to being unable to spell, Blair doesn't require that the reasons for recall be legitimate. Good to know.

Anonymous said...

Thought and deliberation huh, well I am just a simple farm boy from Southern New Mexico, I am sure other more worldly types have a better handle on the concepts of democracy and such. But, seeing as how I support the notion that Mr. Garcia's actions or inactions rise to a level for which he should be removed from office, why waste time with censure. Enough is enough. Recall is a right afforded under the GPSA constitution. So if myself plus 200+ individuals wish to exercise our democratic rights then so be it.

After a cintilla of thought and deliberation perhaps you could see that this is part of the democratic process. After all democracy really is a simple philosopy and process, the real creativity lies with those that wish to abridge your rights by getting creative with the law.

So I openly invite whoever wishes to step out onto the mat. Lets talk about government....Lets put a little thought and deliberation into this. More so than making snide comments about my lack of thought.

My guess is that the same people that talk of those that believe in the democratic process as having a lack of though are the same people who would get creative with the law to enhance the rights of the few at a cost to the rights of people as a whole.

~Blair

Anonymous said...

Cute the Grammar police have spoken...

Anonymous said...

DUH!!!

Ok if you are gonna attack me for lack of thought at least, try to display some of your own.

I said that democracy doesn't require a legitmate reason. (It plain doesn't, all that is required is the correct number of signatures, for crying out loud you can recall somebody for for being too tall, too nice, a jerk, etc.)

That doesn't mean that I signed with out reason. Duh! I signed for the reasons outlined at the top of the petition.

I certainly hope that Anonymous in this instance isn't a law student. Heaven help your clients if they are requiring you to make a cogent argument before the court.

~Blair

Anonymous said...

Cute Homer Simpson has spoken. DUH!

Anonymous said...

I just went by the GPSA Office and saw through the window one Danny Hernandez pounding away on his laptop with an email program open. I hope that he is not on the clock right now. How would that look to have someone that is supposed to be working for the GPSA just sending off emails and possibly blog messages on the GPSA's dime?

Anonymous said...

Regarding Danny Hernandez,
Not to worry. His performance and work habits are being monitored by Joseph Garcia - his employer. If Danny is working on non GPSA related things while on the GPSA clock I’m sure that Joseph will have a word with him. Or at least warn him that it could affect his next performance review. Oh wait.... friends hiring friends and being responsible for the evaluation, oversight, and management of said friends... That could be a bit awkward. Forget I even mentioned it. Besides – Danny is probably volunteering right now. Seamlessly moving between the paid office staff position and the unpaid position of good graduate citizen sitting at the front desk. We do get more productivity for our graduate student dollars!! And none of those awkward employer / employee hassles. Cool!

Bhavana said...

hi: the comments on Danny are in bad taste and deeply humiliating. It is obvious that there are differences in opinion between two groups of grad students. Let us just stick to that and cease derisive and slanderous emails on both sides.
I respect the differences that obviously exist and call for better ways by which we can deal with this.
Bhavana

Roshan Rammohan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roshan Rammohan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roshan Rammohan said...

is a very good bad movie.

Roshan Rammohan said...

Damnit. Sorry, the Html is not working as it is supposed to.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092610/

Anonymous said...

Gene would argue that the president, the council and the GPSA work study students all need adult supervision from the savior who will fill the 3/4s position. That person could carefully watch every key punched, every email read and written. Great use of our funds! Go team!

Anonymous said...

How I miss the days of President Buckner Creel. His administration was like America in the 50's: the water was cleaner then, even the flowers smelled sweeter. Though he is no longer our president, at least he's still pulling the recall strings from behind the scenes. Maybe at our next meeting he'll tell us about the conversations he's had with Debra, our Student Advisor.

Anonymous said...

Blair--didn't you lose your bid for the presidency to Joseph? Funny that you sum up your argument as, "Pretty simple democracy really. Every person gets a vote, most votes wins." Note to Blair: You didn't win. That's simple democracy.

Anonymous said...

One would think that if even a fraction of the energy expended on changing the subject and obscuring the real issues was directed toward producing the long overdue budget that much of this todo would be avoided.

Anonymous said...

Glad you know what the REAL issues are, because there's been no response to my post of much earlier today. Gene and the GPSA Inaction Committee suddenly fell silent. Care to respond? A reminder:

On point 1- I am told the SRACS were a full ten days late, and while this is not the best case scenario, it certainly doesn't rise to a recall of the president!

On point 2- Per Buckner, "We [GPSA under Buckner]had not sufficiently budgeted for that staff person. The issue was not over whether to hire someone; it was a matter of insufficient funds. The intent of the Council to hire a staff person was clear; the underbudgeting was also clear. No one is blaming Joseph for the fact that we were unable to hire someone that year." You also repeat again that Joseph purposely did not hire because he specifically did not agree with the council. Where does this information come from? Your intuition? I little crystal ball?

On point 3- Are you accusing Joseph of embezzlement?

Anonymous said...

"On point 3- Are you accusing Joseph of embezzlement?"

Again wouldn't this point be better addressed with at least a good faith effort to complete a budget instead of being histrionic and trying to attack the messengers? It seems to me that the recall is gaining steam among the more apolitical grad students because valid issues have been raised and instead of addressing the issues there seems to be more effort put into attacking the motives of the people raising the issues and changing the subject.

Anonymous said...

So no addressing the REAL issues? Histrionic is a good GRE word, but it does nothing to answer the simple 3 points.

Anonymous said...

Suspicious,

Thank you for acknowledging that you have little information to offer. That seems to be the first thing you and I can agree upon.

Re #1. While SRAC was "only" ten days late, how about ST? I guess they can wait a little longer since these are only the "scraps".

Re #2. You can try to ignore the facts, but the reality is that the President still hasn't hired the person that both the funds and the authorization were completed months ago.

Re #3. The language appears to be quite clear.

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.

I fail to see anything stated re: embezzlement.


Gene

Anonymous said...

Dear suspicious,

Thanks for being so. There's not enough of that around here. Here's why we're suspicious of the President:

On point #1. I've heard everything from 10 days to 3 weeks. Point is, they were late. And in Joseph's own words at the November meeting, he can't remember a time that ever have been in the past. 10 days may seem trivial, but it is not for people who are waiting to book travel to conferences. Is it all Joseph's fault. We don't really know because of his silence. But the buck has to stop somewhere. Is it a recallable (sorry of that's bad grammar) offense? By itself, no. But as a pattern of poor management... Let's move on.

On point #2. Yes, University BS beyond Joseph's control prevented the hiring of an office worker after the first vote. After the second vote, Joseph's disagreement with the decision of the council prevented the hiring. Again, these are his own words.

On point #3. Nobody is accusing Joseph of embezzlement. We are accusing of spending money without submitting his budget to the council and spending money on grad employees that was earmarked for something else.

For the record, I agree with the arguments for grad employees. But that isn;t the question. The question is whether the President willfully disregarded a council vote that he disagreed with. And once again, in his own words, the answer would seem to be yes.

Anonymous said...

Gene! Glad you're back. Since you're in the mood to respond, how about: You also repeat again that Joseph purposely did not hire because he specifically did not agree with the council. Where does this information come from?

Anonymous said...

""On point 3- Are you accusing Joseph of embezzlement?""

Histrionic is a good GRE word and you would be wise to see how it applies to the posting rather than trying to get away with a sarcastic response. I will spell it out for you. Your response to point 3 concerning the lack of a budget and possible misappropriation of funds does not answer the issue. It just attempts to avoid it by developing a straw-man accusation. A proper response would include a good faith effort to account for the funds.

Anonymous said...

Suspicious:

I don't know about being silent - I do know about attending class - something my fellow students can relate to - the reason we are at UNM.


I also failed to mention that while I wish I had a crystal ball, having the President make the comments in not one but at least two Council meetings is sufficient.


Keep the name calling going - it appears to be your strength.

Gene

Anonymous said...

Ben,
Well said!
Gene

Anonymous said...

Gene, not sure when I called names... (I would suggest that sarcasm, rather than name calling, is my strength.) But thank you for the information you have provided. I wish these accusations, along with this information had been provided by you or others in a council meeting where we would have been able to have a vigorous and informative debate. I truly to appreciate the information you've provided. I am also truly sad at the situation we will soon find ourselves in with a recall. I wish that those members of dispute resolution, court of review, etc., would have found this a useful situation for their talents.

Anonymous said...

Suspicious,

We have had that vigorous debate - had it for several months last school year resulting in a vote to get a 3/4 time person.

Re: budget - I didn't realize that one had to ask for something that any professional organization provides automatically especially when past practice has done so, i.e. monthly status reports.

I guess the President didn't feel the need to provide these things unless forced to.

Gene

Anonymous said...

Suspicious,

Which part would you like discussed in Council? Joseph has been asked about the office employee in every meeting this semester. he has responded by saying that he doesn't agree with the way the decision was made to hire one. He was asked about the delay in the SRAC. He threw the SRAC under the bus and openly said that he can't remember a time that the process has taken longer than 6 weeks. He was asked about the delay in submitting his own budget. I don't remember any answer at all to that question.

It would be great if mediation and courts could work. But if the President is openly defying the Council, what more can all of that do than add another directive to the list that he has already ignored?

Anonymous said...

Priceless, absolutely priceless....I love it....the only thing you can say to my arguments is to call me names....Even more priceless the best you can do is point out that I lost......Gee that hurts...Lol so I got beat at least I had the sand to run...better yet at least when I call names I put my name to it....coward!!!

This is absolutely hilarious....I am not worried I didn't win, I didn't race pander to get elected, I ran on a platform of making things better for all grad and professional students, a message that didn't carry but hey thats ok.

Oh and just in case I actually do recognize that writing style, I imagine you are disappointed that this is private correspondence so you can't violate federal law and dump it in to a public forum.....

This is fun.....even more fun would be if the person that has nerve to call me names would actually have enough confidence in their intellect to sign their name or names to the poor name calling arguments.

Get some sand....lol Viva la Recallucion! Homer Simpson

Anonymous said...

ON another note, I like the fact that currently the only people actually signing their names to their comments are the ones supposedly back room running a sneak attact recall petition....while the open supporters defying the recall, will not sign their real names.

Anonymous said...

Why is everyone so upset about a recall? The petition is just to have the recall vote happen. If there are enough signatures then there will be a vote open to all GPSA members (for whom the president and the council speak). If the GPSA president is really speaking and working for the majority of GPSA members, then the majority of GPSA members will vote to NOT recall him. But, if the president is not speaking for the majority of GPSA members, then that majority will vote to recall him and remove him from office.

With regards to "suspcious": The "dispute" was not something that was between the GPSA president and a select few individuals, or the GPSA president and the Council, so I fail to see how the dispute resolution committee could be consulted. Over 100 GPSA members (as I understand it)have signed the petition to recall the president. I imagine that the dispute resolution committee would have a hard time mediating a meeting between the GPSA president and over 100 GPSA members. In this instance, I believe that a recall election is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable way to "mediate" this dispute and determine whether the GPSA president really does have the support of the GPSA members.

There is a reason that our GPSA president is ELECTED by majority and can be REMOVED by majority. The GPSA president speaks and works for the GPSA members and serves at their will. If people don't like how the constitution is written, then they should go through the channels to change it.

I would argue that, the way the GPSA constitution is written, the PEOPLE don't have to justify why they want to remove a president, the PRESIDENT has to justify why he should remain in office. So I would really like to hear an answer to this question: Why should the GPSA president remain in office?

Anonymous said...

Be careful Kathryn your rational examination of this democratic process could border on lack of though and deliberation. The fact that you are using your name also makes you suspect. Did you run for President too? Apparently if you have, you are then disqualified from making the type of comments you did. After all, if you have run you couldn't possibly legitimately participate in the democratic process and can only be motivated by sour grapes.

Great post by the way!

Homer

Anonymous said...

Oh by the way to, the extremely intelligent person...that thought it was cute to say that Homer Simpson was writing. I would like point out for the record that Homer is commonly quoted as saying "Doh" not "duh" If you are going to use a pop culture cut down...at least get it right....DUH

Blair

Anonymous said...

Collecting signatures is an easy process, especially after an election with low turn out. Joseph ran unopposed reducing the number of votes making it easier to meet the threshold established by the constitution. Lie to a person and they will sign, give them one side of a story and they will sign, or bother them so they will sign to get you out of their face. All tactics are employed and were employed to get signature and this is why it is obvious 100 people do not have a problem with the current president.

If the opposition is confident they will win then I challenge them to commit to the race. If Joseph wins then any rep that signed the petition should step down. If Joseph loses his supporters should step down. Those who are not willing to toss their own seat into the ring are only distracting this body and do not deserve to serve. If Joseph loses I will step down, but will Gene, Katheryn, Ben, Blair, Jason and any other member sacrifice their seat for this election? WHO IS WILLING TO PLAY?

Isaac

Anonymous said...

I don't have a seat. Other than the one I am currently occupying at my desk. Which is the same for most people that signed the petition.

And contrary to your false assertions most people I saw sign the petition, did so eagerly and with little prompting. Nice attempt at mischaracterization and obfuscation.

Another nice point, that democratically challenging the President should be grounds for removal from office. Didn't something like this just happen to the Supreme Court in Pakistan.

Blair

Anonymous said...

Is anyone willing to play? This isn't a game, Isaac. This is a serious effort to reclaim GPSA for the students, and you seem to have nothing but contempt for its supporters, both council members and constituents. 100 signers were coerced? Well of course. They must have been, since non-council members are not capable of forming an opinion about their own leadership. Aside from the fact that you have no evidence to offer, your comments do nothing but once again show the attitude that only the President's inner circle gets a seat at the table and the right to a valid opinion.

If you want to resign your seat because a vote didn't go your way, feel free. I will not.

Anonymous said...

This organization is losing face and I think those that are attempting a recall should lose their seat if it fails. There should be political consequences for taking a measure as drastic as a recall. If a recall proves the president’s actions are grounds for termination he has to leave. If the accusations are trumped up charges to distract GPSA then those responsible should resign.

Anonymous said...

If this is a serious effort to reclaim the Presidency for the students and the students to not want you to save them from tyranny then you are out of touch and should leave.

Anonymous said...

Issac,
Thank you for joining the discussion.

I share Ben's view - this to me is not a game.

I would welcome your resignation since as Finance Chair you bear some responsibility for not providing an answer to at least one of the questions - i.e. a budget report.

Your apparent lack of interest in performing your duties as well as your demonstrable disinterest in the issues that many graduate students care about - SRAC, ST - your "scraps" do not reflect the attitudes of most of the graduate students I represent.

As mentioned early, you can continue to hurl abuse because I guess that is all you can do - since you choose to not answer the basic questions.

I am astounded by your verbal sniping without a scintilla of proof offered. Continue if you must since that appears to be what you do best.

Gene

Anonymous said...

If Joseph loses the GPSA should contact the departments of his supporters and ask the department to remove them from office. If Joseph wins the recall then the departments that sent the people who asked for a recall should remove their representative from office. After the recall election the body should start fresh or problems will continue. This needs to end.

Anonymous said...

YYEEEEAAAAAHHHHH that sounds like a great use of GPSA's resources!

Anonymous said...

It sounds like the recall people do not want to face consequences for their actions. If you want to recall a president but you are not willing to risk your seat then you must not have confidence. If you are not confident you can win why try? Step down if you lose. If you win the other side should step down. This election should be a referendum on both positions. The looser should get to work on a thesis or dissertation and allow the winner to govern.

Anonymous said...

I fail to see why any rep should lose their seat for voicing an opinion on anything, for or against. I am hoping that the calls for such action are meant to be sarcastic, or what the hell are any of us doing even using the word "democracy." When did either questioning or supporting your leadership become punishable?

How about if grad students want Joseph recalled, they should vote yes. If they don't, they should vote no. Period.

Anonymous said...

Well that idea does not go well with the tenor of threat and manipulation consistent with this administration.

Anonymous said...

Issac makes a good point. If you think you have the support of the students then you should be willing to entertain some type of sacrifice. The Republicans used a blowjob to try and oust a President and now the Democrats are too scared to impeach the current President who obviously has committed a crime. The country does not have confidence in the impeachment process after the Republicans used it a political tool.

When impeachment or recall is used to achieve a political objective it destroys the organization. If the recall organizers are not willing to give up their seat if they loose how can we be certain this is not politically motivated. One hundred signatures is a small hurdle.

Is this politics or do you believe the students are behind the recall?

If there is no cost associated with drastic actions how can we prevent monthly efforts to oust the President?

Anonymous said...

Like Blair, I am not a representative. In fact, I have never even met Blair or Ben, and I only know of Jason and Gene because I was a Council Rep for two years when they were as well. I'm not a part of whatever conspiracy people believe exists.

I represent no one but myself at this point. I did however put in time as a GPSA Council Rep for 2 years, a reader for SRAC and ST, a Steering Committee rep for my department, the Committee Chair for my department's student-run research day and now I am working hard on my PhD when I'm not posting to this blog. I want to earn a PhD, not run for GPSA President, but I do admire and respect those who do so. I applaud ALL who choose to serve others to their own capacity and abilities, and I don't judge others based on them knowing their own limitations and ability to contribute.

My arguments are for the GPSA CONSTITUTION.

A president can be removed in two ways: A recall (organized and acted on by individual GPSA members) or an impeachment (organized and acted on by the GPSA Council). This is a RECALL so the individual GPSA members (including those who happen to be Council members) are acting in their capacity as individuals. So the call for GPSA Council members to step down is unreasonable on these grounds.

Second, there are no political consequences specified in our GPSA CONSTITUTION (the governing document of our organization) for those who sign a petition for a recall. As I mentioned previously, if anyone wants to change the GPSA Constitution they can go through the proper channels to do so.

If departments are dissatisfied with their representatives, then they can remove them. I believe that they have that power and I would argue for their right to remove representatives under the GPSA CONSTITUTION just as I am arguing for the right of the GPSA members to recall the GPSA president under the GPSA CONSTITUTUION.

As I posted before:
The way the GPSA constitution is written, the PEOPLE don't have to justify why they want to remove a president, the PRESIDENT has to justify why he should remain in office. So I would really like to hear an answer to this question: Why should the GPSA president remain in office?

Anonymous said...

Then what should the punishment be for non-Council members who sign the petition? Expulsion from school? Public flogging?

If Isaac believes that the President will not be recalled, then why is so afraid of a vote?

Anonymous said...

anonymous,
If you think in political terms, I guess you can think impeachment or recall are political.

I tend to think they are earned by the incumbent. When a President refuses to heed Council directives he does so at his peril. The organization is not the President - he is a representative of the people. If the people feel he no longer represents themselves, they have every right to avail themselves of the tools of a democratic process.

We will continue to press for answers to the questions presented.

The continued silence is deafening.
Gene

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"If there is no cost associated with drastic actions how can we prevent monthly efforts to oust the President?"

I will address this in two parts:
1. how can we prevent montly efforts to oust the President?
2. if there are no costs associated with recalling, then we cannot prevent montly efforts to oust the president


For part 1: Good question! There is nothing to stop monthly efforts to oust the President of the GPSA, and I am guessing that our "founding mothers and fathers" of the GPSA considered this and thought that the right of the people to remove the GPSA president was more important that the unlikely event that groups of individuals would, every month, petition for a recall.

If this becomes a problem, or is expected to be a future problem, the GPSA Council can pass a constitutional amendment to change the recall procedure.

2. Proposing punishment for those who are exercising their Constitutional rights (under the GPSA Constitution) is not the only way to prevent excessive recalls. For instance, the number of signatures in order to have a recall could be changed. Others more politically creative than I can probably come up with many more. Besides, what punishment can you have for all of the students who vote FOR the removal of the president? Expulsion from UNM? That's ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Doh!!

Anonymous said...

Ben you are not merely voicing an opinion you are trying to oust a person from GPSA. If kicking someone out of office is an opinion then kicking you out of office is an opinion that deserves to be heard. Unless you believe only your opinion is worthy of recognition.

Kathryn, it sounds like you are angry because you do not belong to the Council. I sense some animosity, can I get an explanation as to why she is upset. Is it the actions of the president or is it something not mentioned on this blog?

Anonymous said...

Can a resolution be introduced to call for people to step down if they are involved with either the President or the recall effort? The side with the fewest votes can still attend meetings but they will not have the opportunity to vote. This would end the fighting and allow GPSA to work for students. The election will change nothing unless one group leaves. If either side truly cares about students they will participate without a vote.

Anonymous said...

I applied for an SRAC last year and the person who was the chair was named Kathryn. Is this the same person who is writing on this blog?

Anonymous said...

Oh well, seeing as how I have nothing to step down from and you can't make me leave......

Let's let the thuggery begin. I don't know who the person above me is("one group should leave"), but that is about as undemocratic as it gets. Isn't that as close a defintition of facism as you can achieve, to say that if you disagree with Prez and you act in defiance then you should surrender your seat. (OFF WITH THEIR HEADS) Do you understand what democracy means? Somebody pointed out earlier that I lost an election to Joesph a couple of years ago because I got less votes. They were exactly right that is precisely what happened and I wasn't upset by it. Simple fact is Joesph got more people to vote for him. Now as part of that same process he has a group of 200 plus students that are dissatisfied with his performance. It is now their right to have a recall election without fear of retribution (or removal). This is silly, how can you possibly assume that it is acceptable to remove people from the council, put their by the people, simply because they don't agree with the President. Shame on you. I don't know how they run a democracy in whatever country most Anonymous people come from, but that is not the model we follow in this country. For shame.

I would wager that if things become that undemocratic it is not only time to recall the current president, but also time to split up the GPSA as whole organization. I would personally be ashamed to see the Law School that is giving me my J.D. associated with a facist regime of any purportion or level. Which is exactly what a resolution dicating that people who disagree with the president are removed from office would amount to. Hugo would proud!

~Blair

Anonymous said...

"Ben you are not merely voicing an opinion you are trying to oust a person from GPSA. If kicking someone out of office is an opinion then kicking you out of office is an opinion that deserves to be heard. Unless you believe only your opinion is worthy of recognition."

Ummmm... What? I am voicing an opinion that someone should be removed from office. Yes. Guilty. Tar and feather me. If someone else wants to voice an opinion that I should be removed from office, feel free. That's your right. In spite of the efforts of a few people here, free speech is still legal.

Anonymous said...

If there are enough votes in Council than democracy worked, remember you are using a vote in council as the basis for removing the President. If a vote by the council justifies the removal of the President then a vote by the council can remove his board or the members of the council who signed the petition. It is democracy, a representative democracy, where representatives make decisions for the people they serve. You are in law school I would assume you understand representative democracy. This is not one person making a decision, it a group of people who were chosen to represent their departments. If a resolution that calls for the removal of people from the council is awful legislation, then the students in the department have the power to lobby their representative.

Every council member has the power to introduce anything they wish. Are you suggesting the only people who have this right are those people who agree with you? That does not sound democratic. If you do not like the merits of this type of legislation then you can consult your representative. If the members of the board do not like this legislation they can consult their representatives. That is democracy.

What do you fear, if you believe the recall will succeed? You have 200 people who signed a petition. If a majority of the council signed the petition then the legislation will not pass. If is a small vocal minority is behind this recall it might pass. Anyone who wants to introduce this can and I encourage them to do so, if they think it will help graduate and professional students. Let the process work and we will have a democratic solution.

PS. Hugo got almost 70% of the vote in the last election, Bush only received 5 out of 9 possible votes when he was put into power. That is only 55%. Democracy???

The Count

Anonymous said...

Clarification: I am not the former Chair of SRAC, although I'm not sure why it would matter if I was. I'm only responding because I don't want Kathryn, the former Chair of SRAC, to be held responsible for any of my comments. My affilitation and full name were listed previously on the blog.

I won't respond to character attacks. But I will say that it is interesting and telling that when a logical comment is made or real questions are asked, some people feel the need to attack someone personally. I'm not here to question someone's personal integrity or motivations; I just want to discuss the issues at hand. Please show yourselves, me, and the blog readers some respect and courtesy and act in a professional manner befitting your status as a Graduate or Professional student.

Anonymous said...

As I understand it, members of Council can only be removed by their departments (correct me if I'm wrong about what the GPSA Constitution says). The Council can remove the committee chairs and the president though.
The members of GPSA together (without Council at all) can remove a President by the Recall (which is what is happening). Removal of the president by Council is done with impeachment.

Anonymous said...

A few clarifications in an attempt to return to some semblance of discourse.

First, the recall is not a GPSA resolution. It is not a Council action. It is a petition started by a group of graduate students who are concerned about the quality of the GPSA leadership. Yes, those who started it are Council members. That is because the Council is privy to the details of the issues. But any student could have started this petition.

Second, disagreeing with an opinion is not the same thing as saying that opinion should not be voiced.

Third, proposing that there should be risks and consequences for exercising democratic rights is tantamount to a dictatorship.

The attempts by some to eradicate democracy and free speech in recent weeks turn my stomach, especially when they are the exact same tactics that you claim to oppose.

Anonymous said...

The Count,

1. Sorry sir, but you are just plain wrong please refer above to the numerous citations to the GPSA constitution. I really don't feel the need to repeat it for a tenth time.

2. NO, I am saying that of course they have every right to introduce a resolution if they wish. My point, since you missed it, is that a resolution such as the one proposed that introduced punishment for those that execised their GPSA constitutional rights to recall or the US constitutional right to free speech would be undemocratic. It is entirely democratic to introduce facist legislation, that does not change the fact that the legislation is facist, however. Sorry you don't have to be in law school to understand that fact.

3. The equivalent would be that if Bush had been elected and then his supporters in Congress introduced a Bill that said that if any member of Congress were to intiate impeachment proceedings and failed then they will be removed from office. Doesn't sound very democratic now does it.

4. Introduce all the legislation you want. That is your right, it is also the right of a people to challenge a despotic president, that has ignored the directive of the council and the will of the people. The only remaining question is: "Who comes down in the majority this time, those that believe in good governance for all students, or those the believe in a malfeasent president in which the ends justify whatever means he deems neccessary?"

Blair

Anonymous said...

Is there a constitutional way to call for a recall of the finance chair since this is where many of the issues land?

Anonymous said...

Obviously the idea that GPSA reps supporting the recall should step down is ridiculous. However, I would suppose that if their colleagues in their departments felt they were being mis-represented in their representative's support for the recall, those persons would be removed. For this reason, I am eager to see every name on the recall petition publicized.

Anonymous said...

Every name on the recall list will be widely publicized. This will insure that the representatives are truly representing the wishes of their departments, rather than their personal vendettas. I am confident that the widespread distribution of the names of every signer to recall the elected GPSA President will act as a powerful form of accountability.

Anonymous said...

The record of votes from our December 1st meeting of "confidence/no confidence" will also be widely disseminated.

Anonymous said...

To the above anonymous:

I agree that the primary responsibility of GPSA reps is to represent their departments. I brought the recall to my department's attention, because that is also my job as a rep, but I have advocated for it only in private conversations when my opinion has been requested, and in this forum, where I speak only as a concerned graduate student. I can't speak for the other recall supporters, but I have made it abundantly clear to my department that I support this action only as a graduate student. My Council seat has nothing to do with it.

Still, if any department feels that their rep is not adequately speaking for them, they should absolutely seek to remove that rep. But signing a petition as an individual graduate student is the right of all of us, and should not be grounds for removal from the Council.

On an unrelated note, I completely support the right to remain anonymous here. But as a matter of organization, perhaps the regular anonymous posters could come up with screen names? I just like to be able to follow conversations, and its getting confusing in here. If you check "other", you can enter any name that you want without registering.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Is there a constitutional way to call for a recall of the finance chair since this is where many of the issues land?

--

A point and a question:

My understanding (after reading the Constitution) is that committee chairs are appointed by the President and approved by the Council. There is no specific provision for removal, but if Council approval is required, then it seems that it should be able to be withdrawn. That would probably be a question for the Court.

Also, if committee appoints, including University committees, are made by the President, would those appointments be nullified by a recall? The Constitution does not address this.

I am not supporting or opposing any committee removals here; just asking if anyone knows more details.

Anonymous said...

accountability said...

"I am confident that the widespread distribution of the names of every signer to recall the elected GPSA President will act as a powerful form of accountability."

I think you meant to say "a powerful form of intimidation."

Threaten all you want. Publicize all you want. Ask all you want where the evidence of intimidation is. It's right here.

Anonymous said...

I love witch hunts! Maybe the SRAC, GRD, ST, and Special Projects Committee Chairs will "accidentally" misplace the applications of those students who voted against their fearless leader. Is that sufficient punishment?

Anonymous said...

They won't be "accidentally misplaced." They'll be "delayed by the readers."

Anonymous said...

Another day of posts that attempt to attack the messengers and direct the topic away from the real issues. How Rovian. As Finance Chair wouldn't Isaac better serve his cause by working on a budget report and moving the grant process along rather than hand waving, creating misdirection and attacking the messengers? Seriously the behavior of the e-board responding to these issues speak volumes and approach being as damning as the original complaints.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure why the larger UNM community knowing that one signed a petition for recall is an act of intimidation. We sign petitions on principle, I would hope we wouldn't mind our principles being widely broadcast. I fall on neither side of this recall effort. I haven't signed either the recall or the do not recall petitions. I want more information. My department wants more information. I think that's fair.

Anonymous said...

I also think that unfounded accusations like the e-board is a conspiracy that will keep SRAC funds from their perceived enemies is childish and harmful. Gene and Ben have done a great job keeping the discussion about whether or not the office has been well-managed--that's clearly what the discussion should be about rather than wild accusations that poison the GPSA climate.

Anonymous said...

accountability said...

"I also think that unfounded accusations like the e-board is a conspiracy that will keep SRAC funds from their perceived enemies is childish and harmful"

Unfounded? Let me remind everyone that Danny Hernandez wrote “we even supported your funding request. And if you think that it would have passed without Joseph's support, please understand that he controls the agenda and he could have just as easily kept the issue from being discussed, much less voted on (Council Chair submits, e-board approves - we're the e-board)”.

And Issac has called for the public outing and expulsion from Council of anyone who signed a recall petition (in the event Joesph isn't successfully recalled.

How can this not be perceived as threats and intimidation? They are lashing out and threatening everyone and everything from the legitimacy, rationale, and constitutional legality of initiating a recall petition, to the intelligence of the petition signers, to the hidden rationale of the petition (racism, hating diversity, fearing a progressive justice and equality agenda), to claiming a power grab by a semi-secret cabal of Republicans. all unfounded and without merit. Isaac and Danny have engaged, from the get go, in malicious and derogatory attacks that have attempted to divert attention away from the real issues at hand by either attacking the character (and supposed motivations) of individuals who put their names on posts or ridiculing the issues and conditions that have necessitated the recall petition. All they’ve done is hurl accusations and invective. And not do their jobs like presenting budgets, hiring the office staff person (as ordered by Council), or getting SRAC and ST done on time. They’ve run the GPSA like a personal club with no oversight. One with an 88,000 dollar budget funded by our student fees. Of which 35+ thousand is still unaccounted for. They should be held accountable and will be held accountable. The recall will see to that.

Anonymous said...

Wait, there is petition to "do not recall" How do I sign up for that one. I always love petitions to do nothing. Seriously why wait for a vote.

Anonymous said...

Nice. Another example of petulant knee jerk stupidity that has no constitutional basis, legitimacy, or standing and still doesn’t address the issues behind the recall petition.

You continue to mock the recall process, those who signed the petition, and the genuine issues that have motivated the graduate and professional body to take this unfortunate action. No one rushed into this nor was the issue of a recall taken lightly. This is a real petition with real consequences for all involved parties. Your “do not recall” is just another insult tossed at the graduate and professional student that you claim to serve. No wait – that you serve at the pleasure of. You might want to remind yourself of that from time to time. You work for us. All of us.

Anonymous said...

Hi. I didn't start a do not recall petition and I haven't signed either petition. I'm hoping the angry posts above are targeting someone else? These just seem to be really personal attacks. Just clarifying.

Anonymous said...

Obviously we need to get rid of Isaac.

Anonymous said...

My apologies then. Sorry about that.


My sentiment regarding a “do not recall” petition however is unchanged.

And if one is being circulated then it is yet another mocking the recall process, those who signed the petition, and the genuine issues that have motivated the graduate and professional body to take this unfortunate action.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for the people's right to petition, but I'm not sure what the intention is for the
"do not recall" petition. If there are enough signatures on the recall petition, a recall election will happen, regardless of the "do not recall" petition. Then the "vote to remove" will be held for all GPSA members. A "do not recall" petition seems like a good way to inform members of the other side though.

Anonymous said...

"A "do not recall" petition seems like a good way to inform members of the other side though."

That seems fair enough. I would actually like to see what the other side is even if it is just posted on the blog.

Anonymous said...

Me too....because my impression now is that their side is: "anyone who doesn't support the president is stupid and should be thrown out of GPSA". I'd like to believe that they don't think that, so it would be nice to see a post from someone who doesn't think the president should be recalled listing their (rational)reasons.

Anonymous said...

Why wait for a recall election, why don't we impeach him so we can get him out in December? What is the required for an impeachment?

Anonymous said...

"A "do not recall" petition seems like a good way to inform members of the other side though."

Joseph asking his supporters to do more than lob around insults and innuendos seems like a better to inform members of the other side.

Anonymous said...

"A "do not recall" petition seems like a good way to inform members of the other side though."

If you read Joesph's original post on Monday, November 12, 2007 with the title "Status of Office Staff", he presents his side of the 'argument'.
It can be found at
http://www.unmgpsa.blogspot.com/

It is very informative.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 242   Newer› Newest»