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

Lots of conflicting messages going out. The general feel of this thread is good, while the Save UAB Football facebook page is saying vote no.

Got to get on the same page

There are good people in that list. I think Save Football, as Cajun suggested, just wants to throw a wrench in the works just to be a disruption.

I would hold off either way until the whole story comes out. The ballots aren't due until June. We have a NAS meeting in a couple of weeks.

There are some high character individuals on the list that are UAB through and through.

(04-20-2015 07:07 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  The NAS has acted as a extension of the University and has been playing patty cakes with multiple UAB administrations for so many years that I am not sure they are capable of doing anything different.

Here's the thing everyone misses: The NAS *is* an extension of the University. It's just another department just like HR or housekeeping. Yeah, there's a board of people who aren't employees, but they work in concert with the University on marketing, recruitment, etc. It's not an independent non-profit organization.

(04-20-2015 10:35 PM)iam4uab Wrote:  Lots of conflicting messages going out. The general feel of this thread is good, while the Save UAB Football facebook page is saying vote no.

Got to get on the same page

overall, the people here are definitely much better informed than those on the Facebook page

(04-20-2015 11:22 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  There are good people in that list. I think Save Football, as Cajun suggested, just wants to throw a wrench in the works just to be a disruption.

MB, are you even *in* the Save Football group? I don't find you a particularly credible voice on matters #FreeUAB as your general stance on it seems to be to stand to one side slinging poo.

First, as a matter of clarity, I am not a UAB Alum. My wife has been on staff for 27 years and my son went to school there, but I did not. We are associate members, non-voting members, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I *am* interested though, and want to know more before throwing what little influence I have in any direction.

The FreeUAB people who were motivated enough to get involved (and to be eligible, you have to be willing to fork over for a lifetime membership) are people who felt like the NAS was too easy on Watts, that Wes Smith did not show enough backbone. I have mixed feelings about Smith, don't know him at all, and in general I think he's been a bit slow to move. Shrug.

This vote confirms the officers and then adds the people listed below them. The two Scotts, Sam Miller, Musa, sound fine. Rowe and Dr. R-T are going to be members, the vote on them is solely regarding their positions as officers. The rest of them I know nothing about.

There will be another called by the membership meeting, like the previous one that the members pushed through where the partial sorta-kinda NoCon was voted, on May 5th. I think we need to listen to what people have to say and then decide on the votes, because all that piece of paper says is "This is who the Directors chose, please vote to rubber stamp them". I don't have a clue what their position is on anything, and I'd like to hear from them.

That's why I suggest holding onto your votes and waiting to see what develops.

(04-21-2015 09:25 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  That's why I suggest holding onto your votes and waiting to see what develops.

Yes. Musa's the only one I know anything about, and would be a fine choice. But there are a lot of names I wanted to see on that list and not one of them is present.

We got caught up in this fight with the NAS Board we had in place, selected by a glad-handing resume-building organization to hold picnics and hand out little footballs while wildly overdressed. We now need the NAS to be an instrument of resistance, even if it is an arm of the university.

The vital part of this relates to the various bills in Montgomery: should we succeed, the new UAB-friendly Trustees would be vetted by the NAS. We're not fighting and sweating like this to simply add two more useless sacks of rotting bammer like Barbara Humphrey to the Board.

If we want the new Trustees to reflect our wishes, then the NAS must reflect our wishes.

There are some very good UAB people on that ballot. However, the process seems to be reminiscent of how UA BOT membership is selected. I have no information on several of the names and no idea how the list was formed. Who decided which of the nominees made the ballot?

The principles of open and shared governance need to be applied throughout UAB, not just in the Admin building. If the Free UAB effort in the legislature is successful, the UAB NAS will become one of the most important groups in Birmingham. Therefore the selection of the NAS board needs to be transparent with as much information supplied to the membership as possible.

For this reason, my wife and I will vote No on this ballot.

With his permission, the following is the text of an email sent by Kris Findley to members of the Blazer Football Montgomery team. As you will see Kris is a former NAS board member and he is very familiar with the organization's inner workings. I believe that Kris' email mirrors and ads credence to the concerns which I expressed early. As I originally stated. I knew that at least some of those on the slate of candidates put forth by NAS leadership would be good people who are supportive of the FreeUAB cause. Others more familiar with those involved have confirmed this. However, I feel this is not about individual candidates because we cannot vote for individuals, but about the overall direction of the NAS leadership which has intentionally excluded candidates of the FreeUAB movement from their slate of officers and board members. You are of course free to vote as you see fit, but if you vote to approve that slate, don't complain if board is not fully supportive of the FreeUAB movement in the future.

The following the text of Kris' email (I have added bold font to sections which I believe deserve special emphasis.)


UAB National Alumni Society Mailed Ballot

Apr 20 at 11:09 PM

Everyone,

I received in the mail today the attached UAB National Alumni Society ballot for this year's election. Those of you that are members of the NAS probably remember that in year's past the election has been held at the Annual Meeting typically in June. During that meeting in the past, the slate of officers and directors were presented to those in attendance. The slate was then approved by acclamation. That is the way that I remember it.

Well, it seems that this year Wes Smith's NAS Board has decided that a ballot is needed. Even though the NAS is in the middle of a very tight budget year, they decided that the expense of doing a massive mailing to membership along with postage paid envelopes was a necessary expense. Really? All that money spent? I wonder why? My best guess is that since 9 nominees from the FreeUAB team were not included on the attached ballot, Wes may have feared an Annual Meeting that did not have a slate approved by acclamation. I have heard questions raised by some if nominations from the floor are allowed at the Annual Meeting. My suggestion to you is that you find out.

I have tried to stay out of this struggle concerning the NAS and those that are not too happy with the job they are doing. I have been supportive in public and in writing of Wes Smith and the current NAS Board. I have tried to work with the NAS as we battle two common enemies - Ray Watts and the UA Board of Trustees. However, this ballot changes all of that. I can no longer support the actions of Wes Smith and this NAS Board. This pains me because I was an NAS Board member from 2003-06, and I am a lifetime member.

None of us were aware of this change in voting procedure for the NAS Board until we received our ballots in the mail today. Wes Smith and the NAS Board will claim that this is only about trying to reach as many people as possible in the voting process. Really? Is that what this is all about? I doubt it, seriously! Why did this idea suddenly surface this year, and not all of the years before? I have to believe that this little tool is being used to make sure that the Annual Meeting goes as smoothly as possible in June, and that those FreeUAB folks are not allowed to work their way onto the NAS Board. Don't get me wrong. I am a firm believer in democratic processes. Afterall, that's what our Bring Back Blazer Football team has been fighting for ever since we first formed on December 29th. My problem is that this current NAS Board hit all of us with an 11th hour surprise to do their best to make sure that their slate of officers and directors are elected. By the way, those FreeUAB folks are really good people! Without their help, my team could not have accomplished much over the last few months.

I will be voting "do not approve" on my ballot. I suggest that you do the same to send as strong a message as possible that this type of "back room" behavior will not be tolerated. I also suggest that you call as many family and friends as possible to vote the same way. I hate that this situation has arisen. It is not a battle I care to have, but I am afraid that I am now in it!

Sincerely,

Kris

(04-21-2015 09:25 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:22 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  There are good people in that list. I think Save Football, as Cajun suggested, just wants to throw a wrench in the works just to be a disruption.

MB, are you even *in* the Save Football group? I don't find you a particularly credible voice on matters #FreeUAB as your general stance on it seems to be to stand to one side slinging poo.

First, as a matter of clarity, I am not a UAB Alum. My wife has been on staff for 27 years and my son went to school there, but I did not. We are associate members, non-voting members, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I *am* interested though, and want to know more before throwing what little influence I have in any direction.

The FreeUAB people who were motivated enough to get involved (and to be eligible, you have to be willing to fork over for a lifetime membership) are people who felt like the NAS was too easy on Watts, that Wes Smith did not show enough backbone. I have mixed feelings about Smith, don't know him at all, and in general I think he's been a bit slow to move. Shrug.

This vote confirms the officers and then adds the people listed below them. The two Scotts, Sam Miller, Musa, sound fine. Rowe and Dr. R-T are going to be members, the vote on them is solely regarding their positions as officers. The rest of them I know nothing about.

There will be another called by the membership meeting, like the previous one that the members pushed through where the partial sorta-kinda NoCon was voted, on May 5th. I think we need to listen to what people have to say and then decide on the votes, because all that piece of paper says is "This is who the Directors chose, please vote to rubber stamp them". I don't have a clue what their position is on anything, and I'd like to hear from them.

That's why I suggest holding onto your votes and waiting to see what develops.

Yes...but contrary to what you suggest, the consensus (at least the vocal consensus) on the Facebook page seems to be "I don't see any of my buddies...everybody vote 'NO'"

Since offering an opinion that differs from some is considered slinging poo, I'll sling some more. From what I know of the some of the candidates, I support them. I think they support UAB more than some of the "Save Uab " people who seem to be only for football against all else UAB related. It is my opinion...excuse me, slung poo. I'm sure some will get slung my way now and will be considered well thought opinions.

There are a couple of individuals on that list that are pro UAB so that gives me some level of comfort. Everyone on that list should be but the individuals I'm familiar with understands the importance of having a full fledged university that offers the traditional collegiate experience to it's student body.

Im holding off signing either way until I get more info. I DO NOT TRUST THE NAS

Some of the people on there are supporters and trustworthy IMO. Others I'm not sure about. I do question why the procedure for voting these people in has changed, so that is a red flag. In the end, though, I think people should hold the ballot for now, and wait for more information.

The question is what happens if the ballot is not approved. So, let's wait and see.

(04-21-2015 11:26 AM)kdblazer Wrote:  There are a couple of individuals on that list that are pro UAB so that gives me some level of comfort. Everyone on that list should be but the individuals I'm familiar with understands the importance of having a full fledged university that offers the traditional collegiate experience to it's student body.

Again, this isn't about individuals. Individuals on the NAS board have but one vote apiece. I would be willing to wager that some on the current board were not in favor of the positions Wes Smith has taken through out this entire ordeal, but they were evidently out voted.

We are not being asked to vote for individuals, we are being asked to approve an entire slate of individuals (most of which we know nothing about) who were chosen by the current NAS leadership to carry on with their current policies and cooperation with the administration. The current Leadership of the NAS is not going to recommend an entire slate of people who they believe will act totally differently than they have in the past any more than the UA BOT is going to elect someone from the FreeUAB movement as a Trustee.

Go back and read the email from Kris Findley which I posted at the end of Page 3 of this thread. The NAS leadership specifically refused to recommend leaders of the FreeUAB movement who were recommended to them. Ask yourself why?

I recommend a vote of "disapproval" and then let's see what happens at the June NAS meeting when we fail to rubber stamp their hand picked successors. We were angered when Wes Smith and the board foolishly decided to try to pacify Watts and work with him to resolve the problems he alone created. (How did that work out for them?) Now we have a opportunity to do something about it. If we miss this chance we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

(04-21-2015 12:20 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:26 AM)kdblazer Wrote:  There are a couple of individuals on that list that are pro UAB so that gives me some level of comfort. Everyone on that list should be but the individuals I'm familiar with understands the importance of having a full fledged university that offers the traditional collegiate experience to it's student body.

Again, this isn't about individuals. Individuals on the NAS board have but one vote apiece. I would be willing to wager that some on the current board were not in favor of the positions Wes Smith has taken through out this entire ordeal, but they were evidently out voted.

We are not being asked to vote for individuals, we are being asked to approve an entire slate of individuals (most of which we know nothing about) who were chosen by the current NAS leadership to carry on with their current policies and cooperation with the administration. The current Leadership of the NAS is not going to recommend an entire slate of people who they believe will act totally differently than they have any more than the UA BOT would do that.

Go back and read the email from Kris Findley which I posted at the end of Page 3 of this thread. The NAS leadership specifically refused to recommend leaders of the FreeUAB movement who were recommended to them. Ask yourself why?

I understand fully what you are saying but here's a question are there any mechanisms available via the bylaws to change the voting structure between now and June? Also, we have a special called meeting on May 5th so maybe more people should get involved and see what the current slate of candidates views are on football and #FreeUAB and go from there.

(04-21-2015 11:22 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Since offering an opinion that differs from some is considered slinging poo, I'll sling some more. From what I know of the some of the candidates, I support them. I think they support UAB more than some of the "Save Uab " people who seem to be only for football against all else UAB related. It is my opinion...excuse me, slung poo. I'm sure some will get slung my way now and will be considered well thought opinions.

And I think the question remains unanswered: Are you a member of the Save UAB Football group? And if you are not, how can you judge what is and isn't being said and done there?

If you're in it, you have every right to your opinion. You and I have argued any number of times over thing both trivial and important and while we don't always agree, I respect you as a long time Blazer fan and loyalist.

I'm just asking if you have first hand knowledge or not.

(04-21-2015 12:28 PM)kdblazer Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:20 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:26 AM)kdblazer Wrote:  There are a couple of individuals on that list that are pro UAB so that gives me some level of comfort. Everyone on that list should be but the individuals I'm familiar with understands the importance of having a full fledged university that offers the traditional collegiate experience to it's student body.

Again, this isn't about individuals. Individuals on the NAS board have but one vote apiece. I would be willing to wager that some on the current board were not in favor of the positions Wes Smith has taken through out this entire ordeal, but they were evidently out voted.

We are not being asked to vote for individuals, we are being asked to approve an entire slate of individuals (most of which we know nothing about) who were chosen by the current NAS leadership to carry on with their current policies and cooperation with the administration. The current Leadership of the NAS is not going to recommend an entire slate of people who they believe will act totally differently than they have any more than the UA BOT would do that.

Go back and read the email from Kris Findley which I posted at the end of Page 3 of this thread. The NAS leadership specifically refused to recommend leaders of the FreeUAB movement who were recommended to them. Ask yourself why?

I understand fully what you are saying but here's a question are there any mechanisms available via the bylaws to change the voting structure between now and June? Also, we have a special called meeting on May 5th so maybe more people should get involved and see what the current slate of candidates views are on football and #FreeUAB and go from there.

The only mechanisms which are going to be employed to change the manner of voting have already been employed by the current board in order to try to prevent the rejection of their slate of candidates at the June meeting. Anyone who views this change in the voting procedures in any other way is naive. And do you really believe that if any of the candidates on the NAS leadership slate are not aligned with the FreeUAB movement they are going to freely admit that during the May meeting? Yea, I can see that happening.

If you want to know what avenues are available in the bylaws, then you need to quit asking and go look. The bylaws should be available on line.

(04-21-2015 12:41 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:28 PM)kdblazer Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 12:20 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:26 AM)kdblazer Wrote:  There are a couple of individuals on that list that are pro UAB so that gives me some level of comfort. Everyone on that list should be but the individuals I'm familiar with understands the importance of having a full fledged university that offers the traditional collegiate experience to it's student body.

Again, this isn't about individuals. Individuals on the NAS board have but one vote apiece. I would be willing to wager that some on the current board were not in favor of the positions Wes Smith has taken through out this entire ordeal, but they were evidently out voted.

We are not being asked to vote for individuals, we are being asked to approve an entire slate of individuals (most of which we know nothing about) who were chosen by the current NAS leadership to carry on with their current policies and cooperation with the administration. The current Leadership of the NAS is not going to recommend an entire slate of people who they believe will act totally differently than they have any more than the UA BOT would do that.

Go back and read the email from Kris Findley which I posted at the end of Page 3 of this thread. The NAS leadership specifically refused to recommend leaders of the FreeUAB movement who were recommended to them. Ask yourself why?

I understand fully what you are saying but here's a question are there any mechanisms available via the bylaws to change the voting structure between now and June? Also, we have a special called meeting on May 5th so maybe more people should get involved and see what the current slate of candidates views are on football and #FreeUAB and go from there.

The only mechanisms which are going to be employed to change the manner of voting have already been employed by the current board in order to try to prevent the rejection of their slate of candidates at the June meeting. Anyone who views this change in the voting procedures in any other way is naive. And do you really believe that if any of the candidates on the NAS leadership slate are not aligned with the FreeUAB movement they are going to freely admit that during the May meeting? Yea, I can see that happening.

If you want to know what avenues are available in the bylaws, then you need to quit asking and go look. The bylaws should be available on line.

The question wasn't asked for you to get pesky about. Regardless the fight will continue.