The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(04-22-2015 03:53 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  There is of course discounted basketball season tickets.

What if one is not a basketball fan. Much like there are those who are not football fans.

The eruption of corruption continues unabated.

I'll say this while I'm not a NAS member (yet) but for those that are & are thinking of dropping out, I'd say stay in as if you leave they end up winning & filling in the ranks w/ people for their/BOT agenda for UAB

(04-22-2015 05:01 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  I'll say this while I'm not a NAS member (yet) but for those that are & are thinking of dropping out, I'd say stay in as if you leave they end up winning & filling in the ranks w/ people for their/BOT agenda for UAB

What's the point if they are going to ignore the membership in favor of their own agenda? I don't happen to feel the desire to fund a group of elitists that feel the are above the common alumni.

(04-22-2015 04:26 PM)bigdunks Wrote:  I called the NAS office today about the member ballot. I have been a member of the NAS for over 25 years. I was told to call back tomorrow and speak with the NAS director in this office which was not available today.
I am also a member of the Alabama Teacher's Retirement system. We vote each year for new members via a similar ballot, but we vote on each member individually. (NOT to approve the entire group)
The teacher's group sends out a list of candidates. The list contains a one page bio of each candidate with education credentials, work experience including all prior jobs or positions held, current work status and employer, and active or retired working status. I have seen several candidates list they are self-employed. It also lists certificates or professional awards this candidate has received.
The NAS bio should also include professional society memberships and all professional board seats currently or previously held.
I would vote I DO NOT APPROVE or hold my ballot until everyone can
get better information about who is on the list.
I am going to request this information before returning my ballot.

Can you provide us with some information on per pupil funding in Alabama?

I guess that everyone realizes by now this really is not about FreeUAB issues; on the NAS leadership's hand picked slate there are probably those who feel just as strongly about the current issues as we do. This about a chummy group of people in the NAS who have worked in and led the organization and who have had a close relationship with the UAB administration for many, many years This is about maintaining their group's control of "their" organizations and keeping the "outsiders" (us) out.

They have been selecting people out of their ranks for officer and board positions for years and the regular membership (like you and me) couldn't have cared less. Now that we have signaled that we are ready for a change in leadership in the NAS, they fear that the candidates they selected from their group will be pushed aside and that ultimately they will totally lose control of the entire organization. Their changes to the bylaws are are designed precisely to prevent "interference" and "take over" by the "outsiders". And I must admit that what they fear is real.

Here is what I would suggest:

1) Get everybody possible to the next NAS meeting and make it clear that we are not going to back down. They need to understand that, even with their parliamentary tricks, if they proceed down their current path that sooner or later they could lose control of the organization. We also need to make sure they understand we want a totally transparent counting of the mailed in ballots.

2) If there is no "give" on their part at the meeting, swamp them with "disapprove" votes and provide a place on the web for those who vote "disapprove" to register their votes so we know how many voted "hell no!".

3) Then pick a group of FreeUAB movement leaders to request a meeting with the NAS Executive Committee. The objective would be to negotiate a settlement which everyone can live with.

Maybe if they realize they can settle this problem without totally disrupting the normal mission of the NAS, they will opt for a negotiated settlement and allow some members of the FreeUAB movement people to assume some of the NAS leadership positions. If they still don't want to play ball, sooner or later we can figure out ways to throw butts out.

I'm totally open to other suggestions if you don't like this approach.

If the disapprove votes are greater than the approve votes, the nominating committee will review all other applications that were previously received. So we can punch back here.

I am embarrassed for our society today. This isn't the BOT or the executive dept at UAB, this organization is us. To top it off....the vote to trash our privilege to nominate regular UAB people was unanimous from the current board. This is so blatant. They knew we were going to nominate regular non insiders on the ballot for the board. They also knew at the meeting none of their candidates would survive.

Please if you are going to wait to vote "not approved" later don't lose our ballot.

The changes make the NAS look strangely similar to the UABOT from veiled decision-making("unanimous" votes) to self-selection of replacements...NOT GOOD!!!!

The most disappointing change to me is the ability to deny us special called meetings. Those were very important and played a large role on forcing the NAS to take a stand.

(04-22-2015 09:12 PM)FNblazer Wrote:  The most disappointing change to me is the ability to deny us special called meetings. Those were very important and played a large role on forcing the NAS to take a stand.

You would think that they don't want us to do that anymore.

Seriously, what they are trying to do with their bylaw changes is ito nsulate the insiders from those of us on the outside looking in. In other words WesternBlazer is absolutely right, they want to run the NAS like the Trustees run the BOT, naming their own successors with impunity and answering to no one.

And if anyone thinks that the current slate of candidates is going to run the organization any differently next year, they are delusional.

Personally, I think the NAS has been extremely vocal and supportive of the Free UAB Movement. I don't know what else that could be done other than 1) Vote No Confidence in Watts, 2) Call for Watt's outright resignation, and finally, 3) Tell the UAT Alumni President to stick it where the sun don't shine.

The people who have been nominated to the Board are people who have been active in the NAS for many years. These are volunteer boards, and generally the people who rise to leadership have done their time, and done a lot of work for the University/Organization. Not crazy about the by-law change either, but I am sure there are concerns about a riot over these elections. Look, I know this is going to be controversial, but from what I can tell, those who have invested a lot of work and time in the University, and understand the purpose and mission of the NAS are on that ballot. And that is really who should be on there. The NAS's mission is not to promote anyone's particular agenda, but work to involve people to positively grow the University. They have done plenty to go after Watts and the BOT, much more than I believe would be the case at 99.999% of the schools in the country.

I just don't understand the comments that the people on the ballot are somehow stool pigeons for the BOT/Watts. They have proven to be anything but.

The NAS has done nothing but a masterful job in my opinion. For example, Wes Smith's letter to his UAB counter part was nothing short of brilliant, and far superior than the Thesis Media/Sard Verbinnen & Co/Direct Communications machine was able to put together. These guys are heroes man!!

And with that post, I know my anger to be justified.

(04-22-2015 10:14 PM)PTBlazer Wrote:  Personally, I think the NAS has been extremely vocal and supportive of the Free UAB Movement. I don't know what else that could be done other than 1) Vote No Confidence in Watts, 2) Call for Watt's outright resignation, and finally, 3) Tell the UAT Alumni President to stick it where the sun don't shine.

The people who have been nominated to the Board are people who have been active in the NAS for many years. These are volunteer boards, and generally the people who rise to leadership have done their time, and done a lot of work for the University/Organization. Not crazy about the by-law change either, but I am sure there are concerns about a riot over these elections. Look, I know this is going to be controversial, but from what I can tell, those who have invested a lot of work and time in the University, and understand the purpose and mission of the NAS are on that ballot. And that is really who should be on there. The NAS's mission is not to promote anyone's particular agenda, but work to involve people to positively grow the University. They have done plenty to go after Watts and the BOT, much more than I believe would be the case at 99.999% of the schools in the country.

I just don't understand the comments that the people on the ballot are somehow stool pigeons for the BOT/Watts. They have proven to be anything but.

The NAS has done nothing but a masterful job in my opinion. For example, Wes Smith's letter to his UAB counter part was nothing short of brilliant, and far superior than the Thesis Media/Sard Verbinnen & Co/Direct Communications machine was able to put together. These guys are heroes man!!

Nobody is saying that these are bad people, but while Smith has take a stand when he absolutely had to, when he was put in such bad positions he had to respond, he also recently told the other members of the Task Force very recently that they should feel sorry for poor ole Dr. Watts because he has been so mistreated. It was all they could do not to bust out laughing. That came from a Task Force member that I trust implicitly.

That said, I am sure there are those on the proposed slate of candidates who are just as passionate about the current situation as the rest of us. That isn't the point.

The real problem is the NAS leadership totally ignored nine candidates who are leaders of the FreeUAB movement and who were nominated by the membership. Not one of those candidates made their slate. These are all very capable people and at least one is former NAS board members.

Because of this the NAS leadership knew an explosion was coming at the June meeting if they tried to have their slate approved by acclamation as they have done for years. So they changed the voting rules to avoid the possibility that their slate might be shouted down by making their election a fait accompli before that June meeting. The other bylaw changes were simply a heavy handed way of telling the rest of the alumni that they don't have to be responsive to us any more.

While those who have worked within the NAS may have done a good job for the university in the past, they have proven that aren't very good at handling difficult situations. After the current issues are are resolved, if the NAS went back to only raising money, arranging bus trips to games, and throwing parties, I wouldn't give a rat butt who they would chose to lead the NAS. However, if we are successful in Montgomery, it is the UAB and UAH alumni organizations who will recommend candidates who will become the UAB and UAH Trustees on the BOT. That makes me care who will be running the NAS. That makes me care a lot. I'm not working my tail off in Montgomery to have UAB represented on the BOT by the likes of Wes Smith.

(04-22-2015 10:14 PM)PTBlazer Wrote:  Personally, I think the NAS has been extremely vocal and supportive of the Free UAB Movement. I don't know what else that could be done other than 1) Vote No Confidence in Watts, 2) Call for Watt's outright resignation, and finally, 3) Tell the UAT Alumni President to stick it where the sun don't shine.

The people who have been nominated to the Board are people who have been active in the NAS for many years. These are volunteer boards, and generally the people who rise to leadership have done their time, and done a lot of work for the University/Organization. Not crazy about the by-law change either, but I am sure there are concerns about a riot over these elections. Look, I know this is going to be controversial, but from what I can tell, those who have invested a lot of work and time in the University, and understand the purpose and mission of the NAS are on that ballot. And that is really who should be on there. The NAS's mission is not to promote anyone's particular agenda, but work to involve people to positively grow the University. They have done plenty to go after Watts and the BOT, much more than I believe would be the case at 99.999% of the schools in the country.

I just don't understand the comments that the people on the ballot are somehow stool pigeons for the BOT/Watts. They have proven to be anything but.

The NAS has done nothing but a masterful job in my opinion. For example, Wes Smith's letter to his UAB counter part was nothing short of brilliant, and far superior than the Thesis Media/Sard Verbinnen & Co/Direct Communications machine was able to put together. These guys are heroes man!!

I don't believe anyone has found anyone on the list to be questionable. And several have been pointed out to be very much pro freeuab. Some have said freeUAB were kept off the list, but I know some such as Mike Rowe and Sam Miller are pro freeUAB. And I'm sure there are more I don't recognize. I think though, the biggest complaint now is the process, not the individuals. A lot of people are going to vote no on the list because they don't like the changes made, and that may keep some good freeUAB people from getting elected. The next slate will have fewer good candidates.

It also appears that although everyone was urged to wait until after the May meeting before making a decision, many are already making up their mind.

(04-22-2015 10:59 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 10:14 PM)PTBlazer Wrote:  Personally, I think the NAS has been extremely vocal and supportive of the Free UAB Movement. I don't know what else that could be done other than 1) Vote No Confidence in Watts, 2) Call for Watt's outright resignation, and finally, 3) Tell the UAT Alumni President to stick it where the sun don't shine.

The people who have been nominated to the Board are people who have been active in the NAS for many years. These are volunteer boards, and generally the people who rise to leadership have done their time, and done a lot of work for the University/Organization. Not crazy about the by-law change either, but I am sure there are concerns about a riot over these elections. Look, I know this is going to be controversial, but from what I can tell, those who have invested a lot of work and time in the University, and understand the purpose and mission of the NAS are on that ballot. And that is really who should be on there. The NAS's mission is not to promote anyone's particular agenda, but work to involve people to positively grow the University. They have done plenty to go after Watts and the BOT, much more than I believe would be the case at 99.999% of the schools in the country.

I just don't understand the comments that the people on the ballot are somehow stool pigeons for the BOT/Watts. They have proven to be anything but.

The NAS has done nothing but a masterful job in my opinion. For example, Wes Smith's letter to his UAB counter part was nothing short of brilliant, and far superior than the Thesis Media/Sard Verbinnen & Co/Direct Communications machine was able to put together. These guys are heroes man!!

Nobody is saying that these are bad people, but while Smith has take a stand when he absolutely had to, when he was put in such bad positions he had to respond, he also recently told the other members of the Task Force very recently that they should feel sorry for poor ole Dr. Watts because he has been so mistreated. It was all they could do not to bust out laughing. That came from a Task Force member that I trust implicitly.

That said, I am sure there are those on the proposed slate of candidates who are just as passionate about the current situation as the rest of us. That isn't the point.

The real problem is the NAS leadership totally ignored nine candidates who are leaders of the FreeUAB movement and who were nominated by the membership. Not one of those candidates made their slate. These are all very capable people and at least one is former NAS board members.

Because of this the NAS leadership knew an explosion was coming at the June meeting if they tried to have their slate approved by acclamation as they have done for years. So they changed the voting rules to avoid the possibility that their slate might be shouted down by making their election a fait accompli before that June meeting. The other bylaw changes were simply a heavy handed way of telling the rest of the alumni that they don't have to be responsive to us any more.

While those who have worked within the NAS may have done a good job for the university in the past, they have proven that aren't very good at handling difficult situations. After the current issues are are resolved, if the NAS went back to only raising money, arranging bus trips to games, and throwing parties, I wouldn't give a rat butt who they would chose to lead the NAS. However, if we are successful in Montgomery, it is the UAB and UAH alumni organizations who will recommend candidates who will become the UAB and UAH Trustees on the BOT. That makes me care who will be running the NAS. That makes me care a lot. I'm not working my tail off in Montgomery to have UAB represented on the BOT by the likes of Wes Smith.

Cajun I respect very much all the heart, soul, and effort you have put into this cause. You bring up a lot of interesting points, with information I am not privy too. I am not comfortable at all with the change in the by laws at this hour, and I should have said that more clearly. I do very much think every voice should be hear, and if there are candidates nominated, somehow, someway there should be an opportunity for every member to vote. I will say that for many years I'm sure the NAS Board was scrambling to find board members. I've not attended meetings for many years, but I remember in the early to mid 90's when it was difficult to get up a decent softball team with the people in the room

I think we are just going to disagree on the job Wes Smith has done. I can't dispute what has been told to you, and I don't think it really matters anyway. I do think he has been thoughtful, but more decisive than he has been given credit for, whether he was pushed in a position where he had to or not.

Thanks for sharing your perspective and bringing some light to this. It is too bad that there has to be valuable energy spent fighting internally, but I guess it is part of the process. I'm hopeful there can be some discussion and resolution on the byu laws change.

Are you going to respond to my last PM? I would like to contribute.

Thanks.

I would urge everyone to take a deep breath and calm down. Hold your votes for now. They are not due until June 10th.

I've contacted someone on the NAS board and pointed out the perception that this rule change has caused. Basically at this point they look like they changed the rules by executive fiat, became a self nominating board, and locked out the great unwashed in order not to have to bother with them. I pointedly observed how much like the BoT it looked.

If they have a lick of sense they will get someone out to explain these changes, why they made them, and to try to repair the PR damage that has been done.

The last thing we need right now is FreeUAB and the NAS at each other's throat. That boils down to aiding and abetting the enemy.

Calm down, lets walk this back a little, and try to settle it in a civilized manner. In theory we are on the same side here, and we have much larger targets to service.

If the FreeUAB representation is going to act like some of them have about this AD search...giving out interview locations on social media, trying to get candidate names so they can contact them and tell them to step away, calling the search committee puppets and the candidates losers...

I'd just rather stick with the NAS we have now.

There are some people that should be embarrassed by the way they have acted today...sabotaging the work of people doing all they can for UAB.

I think that there is plenty of blame both ways. NAS seems to have abandoned any pretense of democracy, and is acting like the alumni they represent are an annoyance to be kept at a distance and whose opinions are not worth listening to.

The search process has to proceed and be allowed to work. I can't see any good coming of screwing it up, because if the search committee is not allowed to do their work we will for certain be getting Fess and Watts' choice.

There are a number of people on that NAS ballot that I know to be people of character, UAB loyalists. I'm still very uncomfortable with what NAS has done. At this point there is no role for any NAS member who is not a board member other than to pay their dues. Their opinions are not welcome, certainly not at a meeting of their NAS. That's pretty hard to sell.

(04-23-2015 12:08 AM)demiveeman Wrote:  If the FreeUAB representation is going to act like some of them have about this AD search...giving out interview locations on social media, trying to get candidate names so they can contact them and tell them to step away, calling the search committee puppets and the candidates losers...

I'd just rather stick with the NAS we have now.

There are some people that should be embarrassed by the way they have acted today...sabotaging the work of people doing all they can for UAB.

I agree. Things like that is why, while we share the ultimate goals, some of the methodology of some in "freeuab" to achieve those goals disgust me and makes me think that the downfall of UAB is being caused by a combination of both sides.

Why delete the bylaw section that lets candidates be proposed by the membership to run in the election against the NAS nominating committee? Why make this change after the deadline has passed to at least propose nominations to the committee? Why make this change before the most important election in the NAS history by an order of magnitudue? The most important question is why are people afraid of democracy?

How can an alumni with a straight face defend this decision?