Vol. 42, No.2                                                 October 28, 2008

HERE'S WHY THEY CALL HIM
"FOGGY" LONDON

Battlin' Barb's (faithless) sidekick, Steve London, has a Ph.D. in political science---and, before going on permanent released time, actually taught a course or two in the subject, at Brooklyn College. What, then, to make of his "all-hands-on-deck" email to CUNY faculty, urging calls to Albany about the state's budget shortfall?

Here is the text...

"We must let Albany know that these cuts will hurt the quality of education CUNY can provide to our students. There is another answer to the State's budget shortfall. An income tax on millionaires will provide the money needed to close this year's budget gap . . ."

Shouldn't a political science professor know the difference between a surtax ---which seemed to be what he proposed---and an "income tax on millionaires," which, of course, already exists? Any professor who took "Foggy" at his word and actually made this pitch to Albany would have looked like a fool.

No wonder legislators in Albany don't take the PSC leadership seriously.

TIBBI: POLITICS ON
CUNY'S DIME

"Foggy" isn't the only member of PSC management who seems clueless about basic political rules. Take the recent ruminations of Brooklyn's Tibbi Dubois.

PSC executive director Debbie Bell sent out an e-mail reminder "that because CUNY receives public funds, its facilities---phones, computers and email systems---cannot be used to make solicitations for people to vote for a particular candidate or to work on behalf of a particular candidate." There was nothing surprising in Bell 's email: the average high school student would know the rules.

But Tibbi was flabbergasted. "What," she huffed, "does this mean, exactly? Are we not kosher in asking fellow sisters and brothers to vote for the people our unions endorsed?"

Oy! Tibbi's ignorance of the law raises a troubling question: just how often in the past has the Brooklyn Boss misused CUNY resources for political purposes?

A GRIEVANCE PRIMER

College grievances generally comprise 3 steps:

Step 1: This is argued at the College. It is unusual to win a grievance at step 1, since it is argued in front of the very people who perpetrated the grieved action to begin with. Grievances that are lost at step 1 (most of them) may then proceed to step 2.

Step 2: This is argued at the Board, in front of a CUNY hearing officer. Grievances that are lost at step 2 then might go to Step 3 Arbitration, the last step in the process.

But proceeding to arbitration is not automatic. The PSC's "grievance policy committee", an "in" group, decides whose case goes to arbitration and who shall be abandoned. According to many, the Grievance Policy Committee of the PSC does not always act in the best interest of grievants. And the PSC does not give the grievant an opportunity to appear before this committee to plead his or her case.

What about cases that never make it to arbitration?
According to the PSC/CUNY contract (article 20 Section 4 Step 2 discussion), step 2 decisions are supposed to be rendered within 20 days of arguing the case. The contract specifies (link) that if the decision is not rendered within the designated 20-day period, the grievant may appeal to proceed to arbitration.

It has come to our attention that multiple grievants whose grievances were argued at Step 2 have not been provided with the decision within the specified 20 days.

• Why has the Union not required management to provide step 2 decisions on time?
  
• Why are there no consequences to management for not rendering decisions on time?
  
• Why is the grievant not granted a positive decision if step 2 decisions are not rendered on time?
  
• Why is CUNY not held responsible for failing to meet stated deadlines?
  And why are grievants whose step 2's are left in limbo, abandoned to the mercy of the PSC's politically-influenced Grievance Policy Committee?
  

Most important:
In 9 years of so-called "leadership" and three (3) contracts, Why have these terrible policies and rules been let stand? Why have these no-cost items which are vital to the protection of the instructional staff - not been addressed? Isn't it bad enough that salaries and benefits have been decimated - couldn't these guys get even non-monetary protections?

The inescapable answer:
This so-called "leadership" is more interested in helping workers in Mexico and Colombia than it is in helping its own members from whom they forcibly extract 1% or more of their gross salaries!

Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Editor-in-Chief

Issues of The Patriot may be accessed at
http://www.patriotreturns.com
Archived editions are available at
http://www.patriotreturns.com/archive.htm

As you know, Susan O'Malley has sought to silence the Patriot by bringing a lawsuit which seeks to limit his free speech and financially bankrupt him. Interested colleagues have weighed in at
www.freespeechcuny.blogspot.com