W meet V
> Hello - My voice is equally the 'voice of the people'. Presumably, if you
> have a commitment to a democratic process, then there is no reason to be
> 'personally offended' by the right I exercise in speaking a point of view,
> whether you agree with me or not; similarly I must be able and willing to
> hear
> your point of view, whether I like it or not.
> Mediation is not an abridgment of the people's rights - it is intended
> as
> an intermediary process to allow discussion and negotiation to take place
> in a
> supportive atmosphere that prevents excessive emotional violence, which
> people
> can and do get into when they have no recourse to being supported in being
> able to discuss things in a balanced manner, with an experienced
> facilitator.
> I see excessive violence happening in this dispute right now, in ways
> that
> are harmful to many people, including the overall graduate community.
> If mediation doesn't resolve the situation - which it often Does - then
> the
> next step of confrontational legal showdown politics is always still
> available. But the 'will of the people' is not meant to be a hateful
> rampaging tyranny either- whether 'right' or 'wrong' - and your commitment
> to
> 'the will of the people' sounds rather aggressively one-sided, when
> instead,
> it is possible to have both empathy and understanding that there are many
> perspectives on every situation.
> Thus, the point of view that Joseph's leadership 'has landed the
> organization in this situation' is one perspective of many -- it is not
> the
> absolute truth, and I doubt that any of us know the absolute truth. The
> point
> of a democracy is again, to allow for the even-minded exchange of
> different
> understandings in order to approach a working unity. Anger does not help
> to
> create a working harmony and unity among people who inevitably differ in
> their
> understandings of various events, issues and policies. And, you seem
> quite
> willing to address me with what seems like a very angry tone in your note.
> Although we have not met, I see from your tagline that you are in the
> school
> of Law. I would suggest that you consider looking into the mediation
> courses
> offered through the Law School, as I have heard they are excellent.
> Perhaps
> they will be helpful to you in getting a better understanding of the uses
> of
> mediation, and its appropriateness in a wide variety of legal situations.
> Many lawyers have learned to change their tactics from aggressive
> confrontation to mutual satisfaction, and have found that it serves their
> practice far more humanely than they would have expected.
> At this point, although I certainly have a point of view, my commitment
> is
> not to get dragged into the 'tit for tat' level of argument as to who is
> right
> or wrong, and whether what was done was right or wrong.. My intention is
> to
> protect the GPS-DRO, which should remain a neutral organization, from
> being
> improperly led by those who are acting with a conflict of interest when
> they
> speak out adamantly. I will not yet speak out directly on my point of
> view,
> whether it appears to others to be obvious or not, as I do not wish to
> enter
> into the same errors that I feel they have made. I am simply attempting
> to
> stand in the middle and create a more positive and harmonious way of
> dealing
> with all of this. I hope that I can be effective in doing so.
> Perhaps we will meet tomorrow. May we all grow in understanding each
> other,
> and practicing kindness as we walk and work together. Varda.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Funny how "mediation" and "diversity" have all of the sudden become "agree with me or you're fired."
I say Nobody for Council Chair in 08-09. And Nobody for President. And Nobody for Council Rep. Disband GPSA. I could have spent my $25 on a good bottle of wine and gotten more out of it than I have from the lot of you.
I support Blair's email and I agree with "this used to be a democracy". The last ditch efforts of the current administration to stay in power are laughable. In Spanish, we say "patadas de ahogado". Literally translated, it means, the last leg kicks of a drowning man".
Very apropos...and bi-cultural...
It is my understanding the the many hours of mediation training was intended to specifically assist in situations where there is conflict between two people. The GPSA conflict is not between only two people and therefore our mediation group is not qualified to assist. We can conclude, then, that Gene need not resign and there is no conflict of interest because the mediation group is not who should moderate this situation. Someone should though! Who?
Why did the "mediators" try ADR, it works for disputes between parties of one or for disputes where the parties have many members.
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), aims to assist two (or more) disputants in reaching an agreement. Whether an agreement results or not, and whatever the content of that agreement, if any, the parties themselves determine — rather than accepting something imposed by a third party. The disputes may involve states, organizations, communities, individuals or other representatives with a vested interest in the outcome.
Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed matter. Normally, all parties must view the mediator as impartial.
Mediation can apply in a variety of disputes, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and divorce or other family matters.
It is interesting to see the people who asked for money to advance ADR are the first to ignore this possibility when they have problems.
I think we should ask for the money back because those that run the mediation group think they are above compromise.
Varda,
I have taken Mediation Classes at the law school. I am certified in mediation. SO while I appreciate the advice, I will stand by my point that this in no longer a mediation appropriate situation.....This would be an appropriate time to go to court... The time for mediation was about two months ago...about the time people were attacking Mel....or about the time they attacked me....perhaps about the time that those extremely lovable Joseph cronies Padilla and Hernandez started making personal attacks via email....No this no longer a time to sit at the table. It is a time to go to the court of public opinion...(A RECALL ELECTION)....attempting to stall the will of the 286 people that signed that petition by forcing mediation is undemocratic. Sorry I will say it again this has nothing to do with hate, race, or personal feelings for me. It has everything to do with bad leadership, poor governance, and president that has surrounded himself with individuals that were destructive to this organization. The onus is on him and he should step down. Sorry Varda I realize after hearing you speak at the meeting that you do truly care about people and you are trying to do what you think is right. What you must also understand that I stand to gain nothing from this personally and I only participate out of dedication to principles rooted deep in the democratic process. I am here because I care about this issue and want to help people. The only ones that have benefited are Joesph and his hired cronies in the form of ill-gotten salaries and perks.
However, I am troubled most by the fact that a very worthy cause is being abused by a crooked despot. Does noboby see that emperor isn't wearing any clothes? Joesph and his cronies have hijacked the very worthy causes of diversity and equity in order to abuse power. What I can discern as the argument from his supporters is this:
"Joesph has done great things for diversity so he should stay regardless of malfeasence or in shorter terms 'the ends justify the means'" Now think about this for a minute that is same argument that is used to support the use of torture.
I say that is bunk, we need somebody who can do the job with out sacrificing the integrity of the office to do so. Joseph Garcia should step down or be removed.
Blair, where were you when your fees were being stolen under the leadership of Buckner? The presentation given at the last meeting demonstrated the level of theft perpetrated by the athletic department and the regents is 18 times than that for which you accuse Joseph. Do you think athletics deserves this level of funding from our pockets? Do you believe the figures or do you think he is exaggerating the level of theft. If you do not think he is then do you believe Buckner is receiving some of the money from athletics so this could happen? I do not know why Buckner did not tell us hundreds of thousands of dollars was being siphoned from our pockets, unless he was in bed with them.
I do not think theft at any level should be tolerated but I have never seen proof of Joseph’s indiscretion but evidence was presented to the council and Buckner does not appear to be innocent. He needs to answer to the accusations presented at the council and we need and fair and accurate audit of GPSA spending.
Collecting petitions is one thing but voting is another when democracy is the topic of discussion. The vote at the council was 3 to 1 in support of Joseph and all but one or two people in the gallery stood to support the president. Unless you think the “dictator” put a gun to the head of those people standing or maybe he was holding their family hostage forcing them to stand, I would guess the majority want him to stay. Calling anyone involved in GPSA a dictator or a despot is laughable.
It seems to me the recall efforts are those of people who are in the minority and they are using this process for person political goals rather than to find a democratic solution to a problem. He had 75% of the vote; I guess you think the democratic is to only collect the signature of .05% of potential voters.
It is obvious he has substantial support in the council and if this translates to support with students, will you stop this and work with his supporters? I do not think this will be possible judging from the tone of your words. What did Joseph do to you? Why do you take this so personally?
To Anonymous:
To be perfectly honest, I was not around for the first half of Buckner's Presidency and for the majority of his second term, I didn't know GPSA existed. The law school never sees much benefit back from the GPSA. If I hadn't been elected to the executive board of our Student Bar Association, I wouldn't have know a thing. In fact, part of my involvement in SBA lead to learning how little the law students get back from GPSA. That said my knowledge and interaction with Buckner were positive when it came to the finances. If there is a guy that knows the numbers, I would wager its Buckner. So I trust what he says about the numbers.
As per your question about our money going to athletics. I personally think athletics are a great use of our money. In all interest of disclaiming, I am a former college athlete myself. I went to college on a athletic/academic split scholarship intially. I think athletics are an extremely great way for a University connect to the surrounding community, I think they allow for comradrie and common thread for all students to unite under. Did I choose UNM for law school based on their athletics, no, but I would wager that it is a plus for many grad students to be able to enjoy a good athletic event with a team that is fun to watch.
Also for all this talk of diversity, I would like to know the numbers on how many of our student athletes are minority. My personal experience was that of one of three non-minority basketball players on a team of guys that would never have had the chance at a college education if it were not for athletics. Of those of us non-minority on the team one was a poor kid from Beligrade, Serbia and another from South Little Rock. So yes, I think atletics are a great way to reach out to minorities for the chance of college education.
In a more practical sense, have any of you who are bashing the use of our money for athletics examined how much money comes to the University in the form of gifts and endowments. Alumni love to give to an insitution with a thriving vibrant community. Alumni love to go to athletic events, especially if the team is going to put on a decent showing. Alumni then give.
So if your question is do I support giving to athletics, yes I do. It promotes the University and diversity. However, if your question is do I support a president that ignores the directives of a council so he can hire people that display nothing but contempt, arrogance and vitriol for people that disagree with them, then the answer NO. If he isn't going to use the money for what it was intended for and for what the council has asked him to do then he should give it back.
To Anonymous:
To be perfectly honest, I was not around for the first half of Buckner's Presidency and for the majority of his second term, I didn't know GPSA existed. The law school never sees much benefit back from the GPSA. If I hadn't been elected to the executive board of our Student Bar Association, I wouldn't have know a thing. In fact, part of my involvement in SBA lead to learning how little the law students get back from GPSA. That said my knowledge and interaction with Buckner were positive when it came to the finances. If there is a guy that knows the numbers, I would wager its Buckner. So I trust what he says about the numbers.
As per your question about our money going to athletics. I personally think athletics are a great use of our money. In all interest of disclaiming, I am a former college athlete myself. I went to college on a athletic/academic split scholarship intially. I think athletics are an extremely great way for a University connect to the surrounding community, I think they allow for comradrie and common thread for all students to unite under. Did I choose UNM for law school based on their athletics, no, but I would wager that it is a plus for many grad students to be able to enjoy a good athletic event with a team that is fun to watch.
Also for all this talk of diversity, I would like to know the numbers on how many of our student athletes are minority. My personal experience was that of one of three non-minority basketball players on a team of guys that would never have had the chance at a college education if it were not for athletics. Of those of us non-minority on the team one was a poor kid from Beligrade, Serbia and another from South Little Rock. So yes, I think atletics are a great way to reach out to minorities for the chance of college education.
In a more practical sense, have any of you who are bashing the use of our money for athletics examined how much money comes to the University in the form of gifts and endowments. Alumni love to give to an insitution with a thriving vibrant community. Alumni love to go to athletic events, especially if the team is going to put on a decent showing. Alumni then give.
So if your question is do I support giving to athletics, yes I do. It promotes the University and diversity. However, if your question is do I support a president that ignores the directives of a council so he can hire people that display nothing but contempt, arrogance and vitriol for people that disagree with them, then the answer NO. If he isn't going to use the money for what it was intended for and for what the council has asked him to do then he should give it back.
Sorry not sure why it posted twice!
To Anonymous:
Since nobody can seem to own up to their comments here. I guess I must be a mean dude or something.
That is a weak argument.
You are saying that by having, by my count, around 45 people stand up that you cancel out 286 other people.
Ummm....not sure how you justify your reasoning there. I would say that only way to really know whether or not people are willing to turn a blind eye to poor governance in favor of diversity would be to have a vote......Huh, wow, funny thing is that is exactly what this recall does....dang that's a heck of coincidence, no?
So it may very well be that Joesph gets to stay, and if you really are convinced that numbers are on your side you have nothing to worry about....Certainly no need to get all worked up and start standing up to make speeches and trying to short circuit a recall election by attempting to force into the recallers into mediation.
If you are convinced that Joseph represents the will of the people in this egalitarian democracy to such an extent that they would overlook his malfeasence then why are you worried? Remember, we all heard him admit he made a mistake to bad he won't really own up and fix it.
Blair, you did not respond to the questions about the vote, why? Is it because the majority spoke and you cannot accept you are wrong? The overwhelming majority want the pres to remain, why do you think that is?
Blair, you did not respond to the questions about the vote, why? Is it because the majority spoke and you cannot accept you are wrong? The overwhelming majority want the pres to remain, why do you think that is?
What overwhelming majority? We haven't had a vote? Duh The majority at a saturday morning meeting in the midst of the end of semester....Well that fine, but you didn't cancel out the 286 signature that asked for a vote that is fairly self explanatory! Why do you not sign your name? You address me personally.
Why are you so scared of a recall election? WHY WHY WHY? What about a real vote open to all students scares all you Jo supporters so much. If you think what he did was right, then stand by it front of all of the students. Not just those that happen to be at a meeting.
Oh yeah big shot...lets see your name show up....its cute to attack from anonymity...lets see if you have the sand to own up in person.
Hello all,
I appreciate my inclusion in the email. I am not a council member. However, as a law student, I fully appreciate the importance of mediation in the dispute resolution process, in fact I am a certified in mediation myself. (Shocking I know I am sure some of you were convinced I was just a professional agitator.) I also appreciate the fact that this group is concerned and is trying to make in-roads and fix a problem.
However, I remain unconvinced by your proposal. I have read the comments and postings of many people who signed their name to your document, and to be perfectly frank, I don't think their definition of diversity comes anything close a fair interpretation. I question the formation of this Coalition, is this a recent formation? If it is I believe it represents a bad faith effort to cloud the issues of this dispute. This recall movement has nothing to do with issues of diversity and everything to do with the lack of transparency, good governance and respecting the wishes of all of your constituents not just part of them. (As a sidebar, I have never met a student that was against diversity, that might be an indication that your manner of approach to addressing this important issue was confrontational and non-productive.) This is not about race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, socio-economic status or any other diversity category. This is about dissatisfaction with an executive that has not lived up to the mantle he was elected to. It may shock some of you to know that long before this recall movement ever started there are many at the law school that were disenfranchised and prepared to do what it takes to leave the GPSA. Throw in the fact, that on top of doing basically nothing for law students, you have a run-away executive who neglects basic directives and fiscal duties in favor of largely unpopular hate speech resolutions that far exceed the acceptable scope of the mission for the GPSA and, well, your offer of mediation does not look all that inviting.
Further, presenting a proposal to mediate two days before the meeting seems to me to be in very bad taste. I can, of course, only refer to my experience in litigation and the law. Again to put things in the frankest terms your offer of settlement falls exceedingly short of addressing the harm you have perpetuated in your personal attacks. I have no interest in sitting down to mediate this issue of malfeasance in office, the time has long since passed for that olive branch. In most case an offer from someone to mediate in the fashion you pursue reflects a weakness not a strength in position.
I speak not only for myself, but for many others at the law school in saying no. Your offer of mediation is unacceptable. In light of the turmoil this is causing to this organization, I offer these terms back to this group for consideration. I offer them of my own accord and with no endorsement from any other person, though I firmly believe that if I asked many would endorse these ideas.
1. Allow the recall to be fairly presented and the democratic process to work as it is designed to do. This recall election for all practical purposes constitutionally represents Mr. Garcia's day in court. I am firm believe in the age-old maxim of everybody deserves their day in court. Let Mr. Garcia present his case to the student body and allow them to be the trier of facts. If he is removed or if he remains then justice is served. Remember the issues presented are those of willful disregard for will of the council and by-proxy the students and malfeasance in office. Not social issues.
or
2. President Garcia should of his own volition step down. Not matter right or wrong his actions and presence are destroying the functionality and the credibility of the GPSA. For the good of the organization he should step down. That is his sacrifice to make to promote the organization. His self-removal does not mean the end of the good things he is trying to accomplish. It does not mean that somebody else cannot then take up these causes under that same mantle. It simply means that somebody with different leadership skills will conduct the operations of the GPSA. If you really are the Grad Students for Diversity and if by diversity you mean all viewpoints then surely you must realize that it is time to also become accepting of the fact that there are view points very divergent from the management under this president. I ask that you consider proposing to President Garcia that he step down, because he has become too polarizing and too destructive to the very worthy causes we all seek to pursue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Blair Dunn
A. Blair Dunn
UNM School of Law 2008
dunnau@law.unm.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Sent: Thu 11/29/2007 5:34 PM
To:
Cc: Subject: Mediation Request
November 28, 2007
Mr. Gene Henley
Mr. Jason Thomas
Mr. Buckner Creel
Mr. Aubrey Dunn
Mr. Benjamin Mabe
Ms. Cheryl Bryan
We are writing on behalf of the Graduate Student Coalition
for Diversity. The Graduate Student Coalition for
Diversity is a group of graduate and professional students
and UNM community members concerned about issues of
diversity on the UNM campus and in the surrounding
community.
It has come to our attention that some GPSA Council
members have expressed dissatisfaction with GPSA
President, Joseph Garcia's, and his administrative
management of the GPSA office. Among the complaints are
Garcia's handling of the grant process including Student
Research Allocation Committee funds and Special Travel
Committee awards, in addition to a dispute over GPSA
Council directives to hire office personnel as voted by
the Council.
As members of the Graduate Student Coalition for
Diversity, we believe that the allegations against Joseph
are all contestable and therefore are insufficient grounds
to escalate this situation to the point of recall.
Furthermore, the time and attention paid to a recall
election would be a drain on GPSA's time, attention, and
resources, whereas an open dialog and compromise might
best serve all parties involved and the welfare of the
overall organization. Ultimately, we feel mediation would
be a more practical, efficient, and judicious course of
action to address these disagreements. We invite President
Joseph Garcia and GPSA's Council members to participate in
a dispute resolution facilitated by a neutral party.
Faculty Dispute Resolution has offered to facilitate a
mediation between Joseph Garcia and the GPSA Council
members who are dissatisfied with the administration of
the GPSA office. We look forward to hearing from you at
gscd@unm.edu.
Sincerely,
Graduate Student Coalition for Diversity
Edward Hakim Bellamy, MA, Communication & Journalism
Verónica Calvillo, PhD, Spanish & Portuguese
Tanya Campos, PhD, Counseling
Eric Castillo, PhD, American Studies
Margaret Gonzales, MPA, Public Administration
Lucinda Grinnell, PhD, History
Danny Hernandez, MCRP/MPA, Community & Regional Planning
and Public Administration
Kiran Katira, Postdoc, Educational Leadership
Lissa Knuddsen, PhD, Communication & Journalism
Chalane Lechuga, PhD, Sociology
Tarrance LeNoir, MA, Educational Specialties
Andrea Lopez, PhD, Anthropology
Pablo José López Oro, MCRP/MA, Community & Regional
Planning and Latin American Studies
Andrea L. Mays, PhD, American Studies
Isaac Padilla, PhD, Economics
Christopher Ramírez, MCRP, Community & Regional Planning
Annette Rodriguez, PhD, American Studies
Marisol Ruiz, PhD, Language, Literacy & Sociocultural
Studies
Madalena Salazar, MA, Art History
Carmen Samora, PhD, American Studies
Kelley Sawyer, PhD, Anthropology
Michelle Touson, PhD, Sports Administration
Lisa Tsuchiya, MA, Language, Literacy & Sociocultural
Studies
Bhavana Upadhyaya, PhD, Communication & Journalism
Blair, this is a representative democracy and the representatives are voting with the support of those they represent. One of the representatives that support the recall was removed by the department and the pres of that department’s student organization stated her department does not support the recall.
We are not scared of the recall, we invite it. We now control the council and when the votes are counted after the election, the president will be stronger than ever. Joseph hammered you in the first election, he ran unopposed in the second election because he was far too popular, and he will win the third election. This will provide him the moral authority to continue to fight for the issues graduates students support.
Thank you for your help in creating additional political capital.
PS Gene started the anonymous game
Actually, I resigned. A very small number of my colleagues cannot tell the difference between my signature on a petition and my service to the department. It is yet another example of a few desparate supporters trying to misrepresent and silence the recall, but it wasn't worth the argument, and I have better things to do. Since none of my critics actually want the burden of the vote (including our elected alternate rep), the GSA presidents had to take my place last minute. But yes, C&J supports Joseph. Because of the tactics of his supporters, which is his responsibility yet he remains woefully silent, I do not support him.
I was not at the meeting, because there is no point to the meetings anymore, but I think that nearly 300 signatures on a petition is nothing to dismiss. And since many of those signers feel that GPSA is useless, it does not surprise me that very few would come to a meeting. Why should they?
What's done is done. If the supporters are so certain that the recall is not going to pass, and that the President has so much support, then why are you doing everything that you can do to stop the vote?
Yes, mediation is a great idea. But it would require Joseph to own up to his responsibilities and actually answer a few questions without spinning the answer and putting the blame off onto one committee after another. If he shows up ready to talk, I'm there. But given the tactics of the past few weeks, I'm honestly not holding my breath.
To my shy buddy:
You are joke. Thanks for the punchline on this one, but anybody silly enough to think that losing to a crook is enough to make me lose any sleep, well, sorry to disappoint but no, I have not lost a wink. I am not hispanic, I did not pander to any group on the basis of race and I have never abused the mantle of diversity as Joesph does. And at the very least, I have the gumption to sign my name to an attack. As Mr. Mabe again reiterated if you are so sure he will win why offer mediation....does this really speak much of confidence. Oh and as an asidem preying on people's emotions to garner support for a president (aka hiding malfeasence under diversity)....well lets just say that a bit rovian, don't you think?
Is it pandering to identify the obvious when running for an office and work to for change? Do you deny there is a problem when UNM awards over 140 PhDs and less than 15 go to people of color? To speak about equality is to cater to the lower tastes of individuals to elicit their support??? I guess MLK was pandering. I guess Chavez was pandering. I guess Gandhi was pandering. I guess any person who worked for women’s suffrage was pandering. Why would you call speaking to equality and equity pandering? Rove went after people’s fear, while Joseph tries to tap into people’s desire for justice. I guess you thing justice is a lower emotion that can be tapped to prey on students.
One more time just a little slower....NO I think that preying on the emotion that the only way that diversity and equity are addressed is by letting a president misappropriate funds is rovian....MLK and the like weren't accuse of thievery...now were they?
Hello from Varda - This is the first time I am finally visiting the blogspot (got one paper and final out of the way, finally!! and have a bit more time). I was told about this "varda for council chair" header, that was put here by someone else, and first of all, I want to say I feel somewhat embarrassed about it, although flattered. I appreciate the fact that it seems I am genuinely being perceived as making efforts for harmony, at least by some. That is genuinely and sincerely what I want to do...but I also want it to be very seriously clear that I am not in any way aiming for council chair at all. If I even begin by being a rep in the near future, that may give me some clarity about my participation, and in whatever role, even as 'gallery' I will keep on working for more harmonious resolutions in how everyone relates to each other.
Because I am a member of this mediation/dispute resolution committee (DRO), and am stating my concern that Gene and Cheryl, in wearing two hats - GSA Rep, as well as DRO officers - were negating the - at least symbolic- meaning of being neutral reps of the DRO, I also had intended to try to stay clear of personally addressing the pros and cons, the substance of the debate re Joseph. And, I haven't really said anything specific to that. I have said that I oppose going ahead with the recall - primarily because I do believe that this is a mediate-able situation, and because I feel that the bitterness was so divisive to the grad community that I wanted to alleviate that by using a 'softer' approach. I have skimmed the 21 comments, and although I still wish it were otherwise, it is hard to believe that it would still be possible for people to allow mediation to work at this point -- although this is exactly the reason mediation/ facilitation /arbitration exists!!!! when everyone is so upset that they think it is impossible, and yet miracles have happened, and people HAVE been able to open their hearts to a deeper level, even with legal questions at issue, to resolve stuff far bigger than these kinds of issues. I truly still think it is possible. I may be an idealistic fool, but I'd rather view life that way than allow myself to believe in hatred and resentment as guiding principles. I think there will be a letter coming out in the LOBO tomorrow, that is an edited version of that first letter I wrote, with some additional thoughts -- Since becoming more involved in this dialogue, I've realized several things. One is that I too am caught in the double bind that concerns me re Gene and Cheryl - that is, I too would like to express my personal voice, even though I see myself as part of an org. that I believe should continue to stand for neutrality. (I wanted to copy and paste the letter here, but I don't seem to be able to do that. So, you'll see it tomorrow.) Basically, again, without addressing the merit or lack of merit of people's concerns about Joseph and his supporters' actions, instead I am addressing the function of the GPS-Dispute Resolution Org., and its ability to serve neutrally, and recognizing that it's a problem, since all of us as students and as human beings have viewpoints and that to try to be truly neutral and separate one's voice in different circumstances is really quite difficult. Ultimately, hopefully, I feel that the value of my actions will be for the sake of clarifying how we wear different 'hats' in different roles, e.g. GSA Rep as well as member of the DRO (Dispute Res.Comm) -- without endangering our ability to serve as a neutral force. I suppose that generically (and NOT specifically) this concern can also apply to those who are on the Court as well as in another role, and so it could be useful at some other, more peaceful time, for the Council or Court to consider neutrality and conflicts of interest, in various circumstances, to clarify how to deal with them in the various ways they are intertwined when people take multiple service roles -- but I hope that even mentioning this doesn't become another political 'hot potato'. As I said, I have been attempting to walk the line of keeping my personal voice more under wraps than I would prefer.. So, another thing that I need to clarify is that, although I am not really totally sorry that my name was put onto the letter supporting Joseph that was circulated at the Council meeting, I wasn't asked before that was done, so I was quite surprised myself, and had pretty mixed feelings about it because I think it undercut this attempt I've been making to try and address neutrality and harmony, without directly taking a personal position. Oh, well, That's what happened. And I guess it's okay, but even so, I think, PLEASE, that whoever did that needs to make a call and verify that it's okay first before assuming it when you add a name to a list --- And I DON'T want me pointing this out to add fuel to a shouting match about each side's tactics. I guess I can't really be totally invisible about my point of view even though I tried. I Really! liked what Chief Justice Josh, said about 'the appearance of impartiality is as important as impartiality itself'. So, whether I've succeeded or not, that's where I've been trying to stand, as a matter of principle. Meanwhile, I am also truly seeking to deeply understand the point of view of the 'recallers' - I wasn't involved when this all began, and if I am going to help at all, from whatever position, I need to be able to hear both sides well, in order to speak to how the issues can be 'moved', like rolling the boulder off, in hopes of removing the blockage. Ultimately, I hope that this debate will lead to clarification for everyone about how we use the power of our voices, as reps, as people, as mediators, as well as whatever gets clarified in terms of the communication and interaction between any GPSA president and any GPSA council.
I actually don't think it is essential that Gene or Cheryl resign from their positions as officers of the DRO, because they have done a lot administratively for good, in establishing the org. What I do see as essential is that we clarify how and when one needs to 'recuse' oneself, or not accept one job or the other, because of a conflict of interest in wearing two hats -- but as usual, hindsight assumes it is 20/20 vision, and we could have known, which we can't - All we can do is go forward from here, and clean up what look like mistakes now. Re the DRO, it has been said to me that I am now the one causing a problem that will reflect poorly on the DRO, and there will need to be 'damage control' -- because I have highlighted what I consider to be this breach of neutrality - and thus brought the DRO into the fray when it hadn't been brought in by anyone else. I certainly hope that the DRO will continue to be viable as a neutral entity, available for mediation whether now or in the future - that is what we have all been working for, in establishing it, and that is why I addressed this concern publicly, and why I felt strongly that its officers had endangered its neutrality by how they spoke in one position without regard for their other position. I certainly hope that my actions highlight the potential VALUE of the DRO, rather than hurting its potential future neutral role - again, that was my intention. Well, this is too long, and probably repetitious too (please forgive any repetitions - it's too late for me to edit it any further) and I must stop. Peace to All. Best wishes for Healing and Good, Open Communication, with Good Listening - Wishes for (comparatively) Selfless and Heartful Hearing of One Another. Varda.
I appreciate the openness and self-reflective nature of Varda's comments. She brings up good points about the lack of conflict of interest statements and control within the GPSA to this point. Of course, it's hard to anticipate all issues that can occur in the future, so much of our constititution and government within the GPSA is reactionary. When there were issues and disputes with elections, a neutral Court of Review was established and called on to develop bylaws and procedures. I would like to extend the call, in lines with what Varda has already mentioned, for the GPSA to consider conflict of interest that occurs when someone fulfills multiple roles, for instance, Committee Chair (President appointee and part of the Executive Board) and GPSA Council Rep (Legislative branch). This can lead to major conflicts of interest when situtations like the current one arise (or situations which we cannot imagine at this point) and should be discussed and considered in Council apart from the current issues. This will make our student government stronger and more transparent in the future.
Varda,
I believe the road to Hell was paved with good intentions?!
This is almost better than a telenovela. Joseph can attest to the fact that being GPSA President is not self-enriching; other than a thicker wasteline from receptions and a few novelty pens you don't walk away from two years with the GPSA with much in hand. Though I can honestly say I really like the spanakopita at UNM receptions.
Whomever you are, anonymous, please use your graduate student skills to critically analyze the SFRB athletics issue, beyond the limited facts presented to you by anyone, including Isaac Padilla. As demonstrated at Council, Joseph seems to have to make Isaac's budgets (incorrectly) for him, so...
On creating a GPSA budget, here's a lesson for all involved: there are 3 columns in the spreadsheet. Revenue (money taken in, and has to be set for each line item), expenditures (that's the >$0 we've spent so far this year) and current balance (shouldn't equal revenue at this point). You have to put numbers in the boxes. It takes about an hour, on July 1, if you put some thought into it. What was put up on the GPSA website isn't a budget, even for July 1, and it was put up on Nov. 21st. Take a look.
Ok, SFRB:
I had a lot of things to say at Council about this, but I respect the rules on speaking time at Council.
My first year, all the graduate students (including me) tried to stop the athletics funding and voted against it. A rousing discussion was had by all.
My second year, I appointed Joseph as a rep, and I chaired the committee. All the graduate students (including me) voted against the athletics funding, athletics didn't get the full amount and we managed to convince the undergrads to require athletics to seriously justify why they need more money in future years. You can't give credit for this to Joseph.
Joseph's first year, he uses this increased awareness and the justification clause to try to stop the athletics funding. An honestly valiant attempt, and the Regents still overrode the SFRB decision.
Let's see what happens with Joseph's second year.
anonymous, show a little hustle. If you're concerned, go over to Scholes Hall and consult UNM Legal Counsel about whether I was bribed or personally appropriated funds. I'd be happy to show you my bank statements, which are pathetically low. Otherwise, don't insult my integrity.
I'm a graduate student, as are you. Be honest and open with your insult. Make an effort. I try to be honest and open when I say something, so afford me the same courtesy. I usually take personal slander lightly, but not this time.
Cheers,
Buckner
> If you do not think he is then do you believe Buckner is receiving some of the money from athletics so this could happen? I do not know why Buckner did not tell us hundreds of thousands of dollars was being siphoned from our pockets, unless he was in bed with them.
> I do not think theft at any level should be tolerated but I have never seen proof of Joseph’s indiscretion but evidence was presented to the council and Buckner does not appear to be innocent. He needs to answer to the accusations presented at the council and we need and fair and accurate audit of GPSA spending.
anonymous, another point.
"Accusations"? Look at the budgets I made and presented at the beginning of each of my years. Step right up and point out where I spent money with any sense of malfeasance, or didn't honor the reason behind the GPSA student fees. I honored the will of Council, and thus our community, when I spent our money. Unlike what's happened this fall.
Please attend 40-50 Council meetings, as I have, get an understanding of the issues, and then let's have this discussion. Put your time where your mouth is, spend a couple of thousand hours for our colleagues in this venue and let's talk. Send me an email to get the ball rolling. I'd be happy to chat.
We were told that we must keep Joseph in office because of his Chairmanship of the SFRB and the fact that the undergrads outnumber us 4:3. So what does Joseph do? Immediately antagonizes them by acting unilaterally because “he did what was best” and “the hearing schedule is up to him because he is the chairman”. Good work President Garcia. Now they will really want to listen to graduate and professional student opinions and concerns. Thank God we have Isaac, the voice of reason and moderation on all things SFRB, representing us. He should be able to mediate a compromise. Our interests are in good hand. Good work gentlemen.
Daily Lobo article 12/5/07
Fee board clashes over chair's actions
By: Ashleigh Sanchez
Daily Lobo
There is tension on the Student Fee Review Board between the presidents of UNM's student governments.
ASUNM President Ashley Fate said GPSA President Joseph Garcia scheduled funding-request hearings without getting approval from the board.
But Garcia said he doesn't need its approval to set the hearing dates because he is the board's chairman.
The board holds hearings near the beginning of the spring semester every year for campus organizations and departments to request funding.
The board makes recommendations to the University for how about $8 million of student fees should be allocated.
Fate said the board agreed to have campus organizations request a hearing date on their funding applications.
"We agreed to put check boxes and proposed dates, both weekend and weekday, to find out what was best for the groups," she said.
Garcia scheduled the hearings for Tuesday,
Jan. 22, the first day of the spring semester, and Tuesday, Feb. 1.
Garcia said he did what was best.
"I understand she's upset," he said. "It's hard for people to get away from their families on weekends. My main goal has always been to increase student involvement."
Fate said holding the hearings on weekdays - especially the first day of classes - burdens students because they must choose between the hearing and their classes.
"This is the student review board, and students' classes come first," she said. "We're open to finding a compromise, but he went totally against what the board had agreed to do."
Garcia said the hearing schedule is up to him because he is the chairman, and he met with the board several times to discuss the issue.
Fate said the hearings are
usually held before the spring
semester starts. They were on weekends last year, she said.
She said that in the past, the chairperson has brought proposed dates to the board, which then set the schedule.
A recall petition for Garcia's presidency was presented to GPSA on Saturday. He said the tension on the review board is similar to what he experienced in GPSA.
"People are trying to remove me because of things that happened in the past," he said. "Now, the board can't move forward because we're stuck in the way things have traditionally been done."
Fate said Garcia should not have acted without the board's consent.
"Really, the schedule isn't the issue," she said. "The issue is the butting heads. I've told Joe that we need to find a way past this and work together."
The presidents of GPSA and ASUNM chair the board in alternating two-year periods.
If Garcia is removed, there is no protocol for who would be chairperson.
"We don't know what will happen," said Debbie Morris, director of the Student Activities Center. "There's no precedent. It's never happened before."
Garcia said it's unlikely he will be removed as president of GPSA.
Morris said the board will work out the schedule, but it's not going to be perfect.
"There isn't going to be a good time for these," she said. "People are busy on the weekends and working or at school on the weekdays."
© Copyright 2007 Daily Lobo
Hey Blair, I think it is time you followed your father and the ideology that spawned the Federalist Society cut taxes and spend only on essential services. For graduate students our fees are one of the taxes we pay to support this University. Your father left the Republican Party because the party blew the lid of the nation’s debt when they cut taxes but increased spending by over 40%. At least we voted for the fools that made this decision.
The students voted to keep fees at 2006-2007 levels but the Regents ignored their vote. Why would you abandon daddy's words of wisdom and support taxation without representation. You said, " As per your question about our money going to athletics. I personally think athletics are a great use of our money. In all interest of disclaiming, I am a former college athlete myself. I went to college on a athletic/academic split scholarship intially (sic). I think athletics are an extremely great way for a University connect to the surrounding community, I think they allow for comradrie(sic)and common thread for all students to unite under. Did I choose UNM for law school based on their athletics, no, but I would wager that it is a plus for many grad students to be able to enjoy a good athletic event with a team that is fun to watch.”
Would daddy support similar language on issues at the national level during his run for a Congressional seat? You sound like you belong in the party your father abandoned only to rejoin in an attempt to save it.
I think that the last poster has forgotten that this is the Varda for 2008-09 GPSA President Blog. On that note, this is a place for the "appearance" of neutrality; however, real neutrality is not a requirement. But, it is recommended that if you disagree or want to say mean things about someone, please veil your hostility in appropriate speech. Additionally, it would be wonderful if we could play nice and keep to the topic of Joseph's actions, or inactions, depending on your beliefs. As graduate students, I know we have more to say about the issues. I also know that Joseph's supporters are fearful of the Recall, so they have a tendency to strike out with name calling because there is nothing more left for them to do. So please be patient as they are in pain, knowing that once the shock wears off they will have to secure other means of financial support.
Peace, Love, & Understanding to all of you.
P.S. I hope this is a good example for the "appearance" of neutrality. You will note that if you feel strongly about a position, others can always read through the lines.
Anyone else want to give it a try?
Well, that is rare. It been awhile since I was accused of sounding like a dem. I still find it interesting that people rarely post their names when they come after me, but hey so be it. I would love to have an open conversation about how we spend our money here at the university. I personally don't think ,read my lips, listen to your dad, type of tirade was all that helpful or even did much more than muddle the issues, but hey since you want to know where I stand I can help you out with that. Please email me with your questions. If you want to question my conservatism or Federalism, I would be happy to talk with you about those subjects. In fact most people will tell you they are my favorite subjects for discourse and study.
I can not speak for my father. His position is his and his platform his own. I support his wisdom and I think he has an excellent grasp on how to help our country and our State.
So please feel free to contact me. My email is dunnau@law.unm.edu.
If "read my lips" would be so kind I would love to see more of the analysis of how student fee's equal taxes." I am not saying the idea is without merit. I just see some flaws between comparing mandatory government enforced taxes and fee's to a university you choose to attend. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you shouldn't be concerned in how the University spends your dollar, I am just saying accusing me of losing touch with my Federalist principles doesn't quite match up. I view my student fee's as a compensation for services recieved.
Student fees as taxes....thats new....I wonder how many people would love to be so fortunate to be graduate and post-graduate students choosing to pay for athletics in exchange for a degree....
Oh yeah sorry about hijacking the Varda for council blog....
Oh also if read my lips is by chance from the law school (which I think you are)....I know you miss having me on the student forum, but come on, trolling on here for me, well....why not just drop me an email or catch me in person, you must know something about me to go after me with the Federalist Society line. You should also know that our mission statement for the Federalist Society here here at UNM is "Lets Talk" because we support open balanced conversations on issues important to our school and country.
I couldn't let it go. I fully believe in a constitutionally limited federal government. I also strongly disagree with the run-away spending of our federal government attributed to a Republican controlled congress or Democrat controlled one before that. Both my father and grandfather are good men that believe in conservative principles irregardless of party affiliation. That is a much different issue than arguing over whether or not we want to support athletics.
To Blair's Buddy, from Dec 2:
FYI, Departments do not vote in the Recall--only graduate and professional students vote. Those who are too fearful of speaking out in the C&J Department, will be able to anonymously vote in the Recall. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if there were several votes from C&J to recall Joseph . . . to bad we'll never know . . . but, statistically speaking the odds are against ALL of anything to be counted.
Athletics should be supported by revenue generated by athletics. If it is necessary to subsidize the activity then it should at least improve academic achievement because UNM is an academic institution. Athletics looses money and therefore it must be subsidized with fees. Athletics has no impact on the academic performance of graduate students and therefore we should not be forced to subsidize this activity.
A conservative would not advocate subsidizing an activity that serves few individuals but is payed for by all. If this is advocated at any level of government it should be advocated at all levels. Sports should be removed from the public sector unless it generates more revenue than it consumes. If not then we should subsidize all sports including professional sports.
It appears your argument to subsidize athletics is solely based on your disdain for the actors in GSPA. Why is it impossible for you to be intellectually consistent? Does your desire to get rid of an individual trump ideology? It is entirely possible to support some actions of a person you believe must be removed from office. Yet if you cannot support an action that is consistent with you political philosophy then one must question why you want that person removed. Is it personal and this is why you find it impossible to support any action the individual takes?
That is not a cogent argument. Are you really going to try to pass off that logic.
So you are a trying to pass off that:
"If this is advocated at any level of government it should be advocated at all levels." (really there can be not difference in spending in different levels of goverment, is that really your argument?)
"A conservative would not advocate subsidizing an activity that serves few individuals but is payed for by all." (Wrong - saying a conservative is like that is entirely false....a conservative believes in checks and balances and limited central government.....being conservative does not mean that you turn your back on people...that is a total fallacy.....as a conservative I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves....nowhere in the ideology of a conservative is there anything about turning your back on people.....but really this whole argument is nonsequiter on the part of whoever wrote it.)
OK now a couple of simple things:
1. I personally believe that athletics brings a lot of intangibles outside of academics to the University. I think the University is a business and, while I recognize your argument against subsidizing it, I believe athletics contributes in the form of intangibles such as marketing, recreation, alumni relations, recruitment etc. to that business. And if you want to talk about subsidies, I think Graduate and Professional degrees are their own subsidy. The really money maker and the real goal of the University is to provide undergraduates with degrees, it would be difficult to sustain the necessary facilities and staff to make graduate and post graduate degrees available without the undergrads. Sorry, I am sure we all like to think as Grad students we are the most valuable commodity at the university but short of the med school I don't know if anybody would be getting a graduate degree in New Mexico with out the main campuses to support them.
2. Now back to this stupid claim that is about a personal agenda. No, sorry, nice try, wrong again. This is how this breaks out. IF Joesph had failed to act on a directive from council to stop giving money to athletics and had instead given some money to some of his buddies in athletics in the form of jobs....then we would be arguing the same thing but we are not! The point of the recall is that he ignored directives from the council, misappropriated funds, and succeeded in pissing off 280 people. (If and when a resolution is passed to stop giving money to athletics, then that would be an appropriate argument, provided of course you aren't biting the hand that feeds you your own subsidies.)
So perhaps whomever wrote the blog above this one should do some reading.....possibly on conservatism (You seem to be confusing it with anarchism.) If you would like email me privately I have great article you can read.(You would of course have to give up your cowardly screen of anonymity to do so.)
Best,
That is not a cogent argument. Are you really going to try to pass off that logic.
So you are a trying to pass off that:
"If this is advocated at any level of government it should be advocated at all levels." (really there can be not difference in spending in different levels of goverment, is that really your argument?)
"A conservative would not advocate subsidizing an activity that serves few individuals but is payed for by all." (Wrong - saying a conservative is like that is entirely false....a conservative believes in checks and balances and limited central government.....being conservative does not mean that you turn your back on people...that is a total fallacy.....as a conservative I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves....nowhere in the ideology of a conservative is there anything about turning your back on people.....but really this whole argument is nonsequiter on the part of whoever wrote it.)
OK now a couple of simple things:
1. I personally believe that athletics brings a lot of intangibles outside of academics to the University. I think the University is a business and, while I recognize your argument against subsidizing it, I believe athletics contributes in the form of intangibles such as marketing, recreation, alumni relations, recruitment etc. to that business. And if you want to talk about subsidies, I think Graduate and Professional degrees are their own subsidy. The really money maker and the real goal of the University is to provide undergraduates with degrees, it would be difficult to sustain the necessary facilities and staff to make graduate and post graduate degrees available without the undergrads. Sorry, I am sure we all like to think as Grad students we are the most valuable commodity at the university but short of the med school I don't know if anybody would be getting a graduate degree in New Mexico with out the main campuses to support them.
2. Now back to this stupid claim that is about a personal agenda. No, sorry, nice try, wrong again. This is how this breaks out. IF Joesph had failed to act on a directive from council to stop giving money to athletics and had instead given some money to some of his buddies in athletics in the form of jobs....then we would be arguing the same thing but we are not! The point of the recall is that he ignored directives from the council, misappropriated funds, and succeeded in pissing off 280 people. (If and when a resolution is passed to stop giving money to athletics, then that would be an appropriate argument, provided of course you aren't biting the hand that feeds you your own subsidies.)
So perhaps whomever wrote the blog above this one should do some reading.....possibly on conservatism (You seem to be confusing it with anarchism.) If you would like email me privately I have great article you can read.(You would of course have to give up your cowardly screen of anonymity to do so.)
Best,
Imagine if the Bush Administration asked you to verify your vote....
Dear UNM Graduate or Professional Student,
According to GPSA Records your signature has been placed
on a petition to recall current GPSA President Joseph
Garcia. As GPSA Elections Chair I must verify that it was
you who signed this petition.
I am asking you to respond to GPSAELEC@unm.edu ONLY in the
following manner:
Yes, I DID sign a petition asking for the recall of GPSA
President Joseph Garcia.
[Your Electronic Signature]
No, I DID NOT sign a petition asking for the recall of
GPSA President Joseph Garcia.
[Your Electronic Signature]
*YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL BY 11:59PM DECEMBER 26,
2007 FOR YOUR SIGNATURE TO BE VALIDATED.
**A FAILURE TO RESPOND WILL BE CONSIDERED A NO ANSWER.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
F. Michelle Richardson-Touson
Elections Chair
University of New Mexico
Graduate and Professional Student Association
Michelle is not verifying a vote because a vote has not taken place.
It is disturbing people are attacking the elections chair for following the directives of a person who is both past president of GPSA and one of the people behind the recall. When I challenged every signature because there was not a process to verify signatures, Buckner suggested emailing each person who signed the petition. At every level of government there is a process to verify and challenge signatures to ensure the process is fair.
We are verifying the validity of the signatures needed to have an election. Michelle has been more than fair in this process, in fact it is obvious her actions favor those who want a recall. The code calls for Michelle to verify signatures 5 days after they are submitted. This was impossible because an independent entity needed to identify the eligible petitions signers. This job was given to the Dean of Student and his office did not get the information back to Michelle until the fourth business day of Buchner's process.
When she received the information from the Dean an email could have been sent to all eligible singers giving them one day to respond. The rules would allow her to end this on the fifth day when the minimum numbers of verified signatures were not returned. Michelle believed this would have been unfair to those individuals that worked to gather the signatures if she stopped the process on the fifth day. She allowed two additional weeks so process suggested by Buckner could be implemented.
Michelle was the individual approved by the council for this job and she has given every possible accommodation to those who are behind the recall. Her actions have come at the expenses of Joseph. I do not hear people accusing her of violating her duties outlined in the bylaws because she extended the time frame. She had every right to end this on the 7th but she would rather bend the rules to help Joseph’s opposition in an attempt to be fair. She should be thanked for acting professionally and without bias.
Isaac
I second Isaac. This is new for everyone, and while emotions and politics are running high, I commend Michelle for staying above the fray and doing her job. Anyone who has actually read the constitution (which I doubt is very many people) knows that it is ridiculously vague on the details of recall procedures.
I don't see why Joseph's supporters should be afraid of a vote if they think he is safe. I also don't see why his opponents should be afraid of verifying signatures.
In the spirit of the holidays, can we please all just lay off the rhetoric and see how this plays out.
The email addresses of everyone on the recall petition should have still been kept confidential and not openly displayed on the "to" and "cc" line of the email...
I worked in DC as a staffer and to my knowledge all petitions are public information and access to this information is easily obtained. I am certain if any graduate student wanted a copy of the petitions they could ask for one and a copy would be provided. Petitions can be published, distributed through email, and are often used in the process of a campaign. She did not send the names to every graduate student and if she did this would not violate a person’s privacy. It seems the only people who received an email are those that signed a petition, therefore I do not understand why this would be an intrusion.
Michelle has done a great job.
Post a Comment