Vol. 2, No. 1-A March 17, 1992
GANG OF FOUR
We believe that Patriot I and II achieved great success in demolishing the telephone communication network of the GANG OF FOUR (Chapey, Eisenberg, Barry and Plissner). We sincerely hope that they will not bother you at home, and that you will be able to enjoy your evenings with your family watching a favorite show or taking a nap without the ring of the telephone and the subsequent harangue by the GANG OF FOUR on how the administration is bad, and how the opposition slate is the tool of the administration. Even if a stray dog had run to oppose the Chapey/Eisenberg slate, they would have accused it of being pro-administration. Although we feel that you are safe from the GANG OF FOUR and the telephones are silenced, there is a 1% chance that, out of desperation, they may call you. To arm yourself from their unwanted invasion, we are providing (at no cost) additional questions that you may wish to ask them:
1) Is Professor Eisenberg protecting faculty rights or is he prosecuting faculty for exercising contractually guaranteed rights? When and who gave him the assignment as a KGB agent for the administration, spying on the faculty as to when they go abroad for scholarly research, who covers their classes, how they get permission from their chair, and who gets contractually negotiated travel funds? Would his next assignment be standing outside the classroom so that he could report to the administration who goes to classes late? What is Professor Eisenberg's payoff from the administration for spying on the faculty? Is this the role a union officer should play, especially when he/she is asking you to elect him/her so they can represent you and protect you from the same type of spying?
2) Why is it that there are two persons from each of five departments (Chapey, Youkeles-Beh. Sci, Kamen, Zlater-HPE; Lewis, Plissner-Stud. Devel.; Guardino, Goldtsein-Bus.; and Barry, Maloney-Sec.Sci.) running on the Chapey/Eisenberg slate? How come departments such as Art, Biology, Music, Library, Foreign Languages, Speech and Travel have no representation? Is it possible that no one from these departments was asked to run? or is it more logical that no one from these departments wanted to run on the Chapey/Eisenberg ticket. 3} How many of those who are running on the Chapey/Eisenberg slate have grievances pending that are being handled by Prof. Eisenberg? Does filing of a grievance oblige you to run or assure you a place on the Chapey/Eisenberg slate?
4) In respect to Comptroller Holtzman's visit to KCC last week, when and why did you Dr. Chapey create a new committee called KCC/PSC Women's Month Committee? Is it true that you are not part of the official, College-wide Women's Month Committee? Do you know that women faculty members are furious at you for co-opting a serious program for your own personal gain?
Rumors persist that the Chapey/Eisenberg/Plissner/Barry slate is undergoing internal conflicts, fights, disagreements and accusations against each other. It has been claimed that a serious rift between Chapey and Eisenberg has created chaos in the slate to the point that other members on the slate regret that they even agreed to run. In our College hallways you can hear Prof. Chapey asking people to vote just for her and, a bit later, hear Prof. Eisenberg pleading with a faculty member to forget about everyone else on the ticket, incjuding for Chapey. and to vote just for him! Obviously, Professors Chapey and Eisenberg are most concerned about their released time than they are the good of the faculty. Meanwhile, Professor Plissner wages his own campaign. In short, the abuse of their own slate members and fellow faculty is sad.
My advice to the faculty is to vote for no one on the Chapev/Eisen- berg/Barry/Plissner slate.
WAKE UP FACULTY, UNITE TO DEFEAT THE CHAPEY SLATE
PSC/KCC UNION member
P.S. Remember the shameful use of students to disrupt the November 26th meeting.