Vol. 41, No.2 Part 2                                                 August 11, 2008

(Name Withheld)

It was my understanding, apparently naive, that this was a closed list for elected delegates. Some of our emails in this list have been forwarded to others outside the union; I know this because Inside Higher Ed contacted me this morning. Since I'm new to this structure and missed the orientation for new delegates in June, I'd like to know if there are any guidelines for emails generated and circulated by this list.

(Name Withheld)

*********************************************************

(Name Withheld)

There have been no formal guidelines for this list.  All delegates, alternate delegates and some PSC staff are on this list.  It was our intention in setting up this list that it be an open forum for communication and debate among list participants.  Unfortunately, some participants on this list have used the list for their own political purposes.  As you mentioned, the reporter from Inside Higher Education was sent selected email postings from this list without the permission of the emails' authors.  We have also found out that someone on this list has forwarded messages from the list to CUNY management.  So, you should treat all postings as if they are being sent for public distribution.

In solidarity,
Steve London
PSC First Vice President

*********************************************************

The postwoman just came with my mail.

There was an envelope from the PSC.

I opened the envelope. Inside I found a hard copy of the same letter (below) that was sent by email.

Naively, perhaps, I was shocked:

Yet another special mailing urging a Yes vote.

We were told that "resources" could not be expended on mailing out the one-sheet statement of the group of "part-timers" calling for a No vote.

And then we were told that the proposal for a contract discussion bulletin could not and would not be accepted.

And now we receive this. The one-page alternative view could easily have been put into the envelope together with the latest call for a Yes vote. It was not.

I am so indignant at this -- at the double standard and false arguments against our completely reasonable requests -- that I find it difficult to express.

There is a good side: Our campaign for a No vote against the latest Walmart U contract has vocally raised debate on crucial issues and gained a wide hearing. The union leadership clearly feels it necessary to use special efforts (and resources) to reply, while keeping a 100% monopoly of printed statements (not scattered journalistic quotes) for its position.

(Name Withheld)

*********************************************************

Petition

To all DA delegates and alternates:

As you are aware, after controversy over the request to formally circulate divergent views on the contract, (Name withheld) proposed a "contract discussion bulletin" to air viewpoints, analyses and debates regarding the critical issues involved.

This reasonable, timely and eminently practical request was supported by many with varied opinions on the issues under discussion, and formally requested by the group of "concerned adjuncts, 'part-timers' and graduate students" who had asked that our statement opposing the contract be circulated in one or another form. Yet such union-circulated statements of position are wrongly deemed the exclusive preserve of the "Yes" position of the leadership, most recently a group of four EC members whose call for a "Yes" vote has now been specially mailed out.

After the Clarion printed lengthy formal presentations of the officers' position (with only brief selected sound bites of dissident views in a journalistic report), after a special mailing went out with a further letter from President Bowen advocating a "Yes" vote, after PSC officers wrote opposing the contract bulletin request, another, new, special and official mailing (July 28) has now gone out on PSC letterhead, mailed to members' home addresses, signed by four EC members, who explicitly seek to respond to points we have raised, in order to provide "an articulation of the reasons for our 'yes vote' recommendation."

One side of the debate is being officially promoted in a string of official publications, using official union resources, while the other is being officially denied access and, (unofficially of course), in effect ... censored.

Delegates, alternates and members have raised enormously important questions, concerns and points for clarification and debate, from deepening inequality for "part-timers" to workload, the frustrating and unfair obstacles CUNY uses against HEOs, the new Clinical line, whether raises will really be above inflation (given that the price index excludes food and fuel!), what is really happening with health care, that monies for parental leave (a crucial objective for us all to support) and adjunct professional development funds would come from delaying by two weeks implementation of proposed contractual raises, and other subjects.

Again, there is a range of opinion and analysis on these and other issues. and considerable confusion on some. To vote "Yes" or "No," the membership must be fully informed. The fact that the EC voted a position, which the majority of the DA voted for after brief, high-pressure debate, in no sense closes these issues or answers the questions.

All those who support full democratic debate of the burning issues facing us all, whatever your specific viewpoint:

Please sign on to this formal request for a contract discussion bulletin, by adding your name to this request, on this list, at this time. If you have already indicated your support, please add your name once again.

Our entire union can only gain from this vital exercise of union democracy.

In solidarity,
(Name Withheld)

[Emphasis Supplied by Editor]

Note: As of August 5th, 38 individuals had signed the Petition.Institutional breakdown is as follows: Baruch 4, BMCC 5, Brooklyn 4, CCNY 2, CSI 1, Evers 1, GC 1, HCS 1, Hostos 2, Hunter 5, JJ 2, Lehman 3, NYCT 2, QC 1, QCC 1, Retiree 1, and York 2

*********************************************************

Unwise it would be if that is what is happening but I for one do not think that is what is being requested.  No, not at all. How is requesting a contract discussion bulletin and open discussion on the contract a violation of DA policy?   How is providing for an open discussion to be equated with deciding on what views are to be supported?  Since when is open discussion a violation of the PSC constitution or any DA policy?  Since when is providing a forum for a discussion the endorsement of any view that is expressed in such a forum?

I need to be enlightened as to how the exercise of speech has become so threatening to a union that prides itself of bringing all of its members together for common cause .  What is to be feared in facilitating the discourse of brothers and sisters on matters of great concern to them and the business of this common association that we have?  Why is there the need to distort the nature and intention of the request for the facilitation of discourse?

*********************************************************

To Peter Hogness & DA members:

We are requesting that the upcoming contract issue of CLARION include substantive dialogue about the contract with pro and con viewpoints, as is customary before democratic voting.

We are specifically requesting space in the contract issue of CLARION for adjuncts, "part-timers" and graduate students who have expressed their disagreement with this settlement at the DA to present their views in their own format. A statement from a group of over 30 adjuncts, "part-timers" and graduate students advocating a No-Vote on the contract is in final stages of preparation and we ask that it be printed in this issue.

In struggle for solidarity and union democracy,

(4 Names Withheld)
and others in agreement...

*********************************************************

When I got your e-mail, the next issue of Clarion was already being laid out and proofread.  We're at the printer tomorrow (Wed.).  Even if your statement were finished, I couldn't rip up our layout the day before we go to press.

Our schedule aims to get the paper to most members by the time they receive their ratification ballots and voting information.  If we miss our press date, they'd get the paper long after.  So just as a practical matter, your proposal comes too late.  But clearly your letter raises other issues.

This special contract edition of Clarion includes detailed news coverage of the Delegate Assembly's discussion on July 1, and that article reflects the range of views that folks expressed. Your letter makes clear that you'd rather present your arguments at greater length in an opinion piece.  The problem I face as editor is that many others feel they have just as strong a claim on that space as you.  That's not an insoluble problem-- it's a matter of editorial judgment.  In this case, I thought the best way to reflect the diversity of members' views was to run a thorough news report on the debate at the DA..

We could have opted instead for publishing many pages of op-eds about the contract, and much less specific information about its provisions.  But the format we've used in the past has been popular with members, who've told me they found it very useful in voting on a proposed contract.

Editorially, it won't surprise you to hear that Clarion is in favor of ratification. That's union policy, as defined by vote of the union's delegates. That doesn't mean that only this point of view should appear in our pages, and I aimed for the report on the DA to be a fair account that would inform readers about some of the key points that were made, on different sides, that evening. Hopefully you'll agree, even if you don't agree with other decisions about this issue of the paper.

--Peter
_________________________________________

Peter Hogness, Editor,
Clarion newspaper of the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY, AFT 2334

61 Broadway, 15th fl., NYC  10006

www.psc-cuny.org/communications.htm

Phone: 212-819-1764
Fax:    212-302-7815
phogness@pscmail.org

*********************************************************

Good morning, Peter,

My gut reaction to your latter assertions here: your side, the union leadership, took far more time presenting its case at the DA meeting than you allowed us, the dissenters, to. Barbara, in her role as chair, went on and on presenting the alleged good points, and took her sweet old time to get to the viewpoints of guests there at the meeting hoping to present a dissenting view. The official representative of the adjuncts on the bargaining committee, Marcia Newfield, rather than present accurately the interests of her constituents, scolded us as if we were spoiled children.

So if you present those views in the form of a journalistic account of that meeting, as you propose to do so here, you reproduce rather than rectify the unfairness of that meeting to the "diversity," as you say, of the "members' views."

*********************************************************

I never "scolded" anyone. I have worked as hard as anyone reading this on behalf of part timers. The decision of the part timers on the EC and bargaining team to vote yes was based on the pressures of the time (pay bill...potential state budget decreases), the reaction of management to our demands, the demands of other groups within the PSC, and the responses to  contract campaign efforts. It's a strategic decision--that's what Stanley was also talking about. In no way am I or the others satisfied with the gains for part timers. It is a tactical question of what to do, when to do it, and how efficacious the efforts. I'm glad people are taking note at this time. We put out calls in This Week in the PSC for adjunct stories and petition signing on 4/28, 5/5, 5/27, 6/2 and got l8 stories and 1,200 signatures. I know we can do better the next time; I think consciousness raising comes in unexpected ways, and I trust that the energy for a no vote will transmute itself into ongoing organizing efforts.

Marcia Newfield

*********************************************************

Dear Brother Hogness,

As you point out, this not a technical but a policy issue.

Within our union, there is an organized group presenting a collectively formulated viewpoint of opposition to the contract because it deepens inequality at CUNY. This group presented a written statement at the Delegate Assembly. It is made up of adjuncts, teaching fellows, Continuing Ed and CLIP instructors, and full-timers committed to the union principle that "an injury to one is an injury to all."

A formal request has been made for our collectively formulated viewpoint to be printed in the Clarion.

That is very different from a journalistic report in which you decide which comments seem most pertinent.

It is also different from the alleged specter of a mass of individual op eds. Clearly, however, the broadest debate on the contract is not only appropriate but necessary.

This is not a technical issue but a question of union democracy.

We did not ask for space in the paper proportional to the number of delegates who voted no or abstained on the contract at the DA. That would be a lot more space than our brief  statement.

I am sure that many full-timers as well (including those who do not share our position)  would agree that it is in the interest of all to hear the views being put forward in organized form on the contract we all have to live under for the next years.

I would invite them to make their views heard on this matter.

Will the unseemly rush to approval become a stampede that tramples real debate?

The union paper belongs to all the union. Open it up.

Fraternally,
(Name Withheld)

PS: Would you suggest that we request the union leadership to make a special mailing of our statement? Seems like a waste of money when the Clarion should carry the brief statement.