I'm sure this will be more of the same from Watts. Will probably claim a misunderstanding in his involvement with the ATF and decision to refuse OSKR.
Hopefully we can get some eyes and ears over there, but I'm not holding out hope for anything different from Watts and Co.
(04-13-2015 11:30 AM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.uab.edu/faculty/senate/162-fa...ing-041415
The Faculty Senate will meet tomorrow morning at 7:30 w/ Dr. Watts. The meeting is open to the public. Hopefully we can get some folks there.
I'm not so sure it is open to the general public. From my reading of the announcement, it was open to non-Senate members( UAB students, faculty, and staff ).
Doesn't look like open to the public but we need some folks I there. Anyone that is eligible to go needs to try and make it.
All general Faculty Senate meetings are open to the public. It doesn't matter what they say on the website. It is in their bylaws:
I.6. Access to Meetings of the Senate and Its Standing Committees
I.6.a. Any person may attend a meeting of the senate or one of its committees to observe the proceedings.
I.6.b. Anyone other than a senator may address the senate only by invitation of the senate or its Chair. Visitors may address the senate if they are recognized by the Chair.
I.6.c. The senate or one of its committees may hold executive sessions from which all persons except senators, senators ex-officio, alternate senators, and any such other persons as the senate or one of its committees shall admit are excluded. A motion to go into executive session shall have the parliamentary precedence of a question of privilege, is debatable, may be amended, and requires a two-thirds majority vote of those present for its adoption.
I expect Watts to exit stage left at 1st opportunity.
Then print out what demiveeman posted or go get it from the official website and take it with you, for whoever wants to go. Show them the rules and if they don't let you in then they are in violation of their own bylaws.
(04-13-2015 12:50 PM)rook360 Wrote: [ -> ]Then print out what demiveeman posted or go get it from the official website and take it with you, for whoever wants to go. Show them the rules and if they don't let you in then they are in violation of their own bylaws.
They'll let you in.
I expect that Watts is going to have to answer the two letters that the Faculty Senate sent him tomorrow. If he breezes in, makes a speech, and tries to claim an appointment elsewhere he's liable to be looking at the Faculty Senate filing a grievance with SACS. Even he's not that stupid, or his handlers are not.
It's going to be interesting to see what answers the administration gave SACS with regard to the third party complaints. If they glossed over them, lied, then once again you might be back to the Faculty Senate making a formal complaint to SACS. I'm not sure that SACS can ignore that, even if they pre-wrote a report giving the administration a clean bill of health.
And God Bless Chad Epps, who does not have tenure but does have guts and principles, as well as a man sized set of testicles.
BD, why hasn't the faculty senate filed a grievance with SACS up until this point?
I also would like to commend Chad Epps for standing up.
I didn't know much about him at first & I know he is doing what the faculty wants him to do, but still he is taking a stand.
I'm not any kind of academic insider to answer that question. I'd speculate that the Senate is a deliberative body, very formal, and that it acts step by step. The other side of that coin is that there is no other group who Watts has lied to more directly, often, and repeatedly. I think that they have to be done with patience and seriously pissed by now, and that those two letters were direct evidence of that. So far as that goes, the "over 75%" who voted for the NoCon also says that.
I rather doubt that what has gone on since since that vote makes them more kindly disposed to Watts' bull****.
The thing with SACS was the potential for the collateral damage, right? I remember threads a few months ago explaining that, while every effort helps, that it could be the equivalent of using a shotgun to kill a bug. They probably thought that he'd rescind a lot of those unilateral decisions or straight up resign.
I don't expect much out of this meeting, but I'll go since I don't have class tomorrow. I fully expect them to stick closely to the agenda and for the proposed Q/A to really be a brief speech about UAB Forward. On the event that I'm wrong, is there any questions anyone wants fielded?
Just one: Why the hell are you still here?
Time for the grenade. F- the shotgun.
The SACS option is the nuclear bomb from a faculty point of view. Lose accreditation and degrees mean nothing.
Ask if the Faculty Senate and undergrad and grad students will share in the evaluation of the ATF report and the decision about reinstatement football, bowling, and rifle. You know, shared governance!
Considering SACS evidently didn't give two rips about the multiple votes of no confidence, in the university president of all people, that occurred only a few days before their visit, nor the hundreds of 3rd party complaints they received concerning important issues, I don't know why anyone still refers to them as a "nuclear option." They care nothing about what is going on, it would never get to the point that they threaten our accreditation, if they continue to act as they have to this point.
SACS seems to be the cap gun option. Slightly weaker than the NCAA which wields a Red Rider BB gun.
(04-13-2015 03:15 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Ask if the Faculty Senate and undergrad and grad students will share in the evaluation of the ATF report and the decision about reinstatement football, bowling, and rifle. You know, shared governance!
Seriously, someone who's going to be there needs to ask this.
Demand that Watts stay away from graduation ceremonies.