If you have difficulty reading the newsletter, please go to www.patriotreturns.com to see the latest release.
Vol. 42, No.2 October 28, 2008
HERE'S WHY THEY CALL HIM
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
"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.
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.
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.
Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
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