Vol. 49, No.2                                                        July 15, 2009

A MANDATE FOR MORE OF THE SAME?

As our readers no doubt know, Barbara Bowen and the New Caucus were victorious in the PSC's Spring elections. Despite our many reservations about the policies, politics and personalities of the New Caucus, we congratulate the winners.

In the wake of the contest, we have had the opportunity to examine the official results as reported by the American Arbitration Association. Some 16,754 ballots were mailed out to eligible voters on April 1st; another 613 were sent out subsequently at the request of the PSC for a total of 17,367. Agency fee payers, numbering approximately 3,648, were not eligible to vote.

When the ballots were counted on April 30th, Barbara Bowen retained the presidency with 4,362 votes; Steve London kept his vice-presidential seat with 4, 269. Clean and clear wins, to be sure.

Only 25.11% and 24.58% of ballots mailed were marked in their favor, thus neither Bowen nor London won even close to a mandate. If one includes union members who were too disheartened to vote at all, and agency fee paying colleagues, only about 1 in 5 CUNY faculty and staff supported the New Caucus: 20.76% and 20.31% of instructional staff voted for Barbara and Steve respectively! A sad commentary, indeed.

[Click here for the official results]

ARBITRARY TREATMENT FOR THE CLTs?

In the spirit of free speech and open dialogue The Patriot continues to broadcast the diverse views of members of the Professional Staff Congress. The following is yet another e-mail that we are passing along to our colleagues across CUNY. It first appeared on the CLT list serv. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

To:  Ms. Barbara Bowen,
President, Professional Staff Congress, CUNY
Local 2334

Dear President Bowen:

A few years ago we were all encouraged to take advantage of the Professional Advancement grants. I was personally told in the first year when the grants became available, that the money is there by contract and that if CLTs don't apply and use these grants, CUNY will use that as an excuse to diminish or drop the provision from the next contract. Now I find that applications are being summarily denied, not by the college administration but the PSC board members who are on the application review committee -- a small group of three who, arbitrarily it seems, can approve or disapprove these requests. The excuse given for denial of the CLTs' applications in the cases that I am aware of has always been just one -- the panel claims that they have determined that the requested activity is "not related to the applicant's job description" and thus the applications were denied. In these cases that excuse turned out to be a wholly arbitrary assessment and in a word, totally bogus. 

The applications were turned down even though they were made for participation in events that were directly and specifically related to the CLTs' jobs.  In fact, in the past the same CLTs applications were granted for identical conferences and symposia. Their job descriptions hadn't changed; the nature of the conferences or symposia haven't changed and in fact they were upgraded to deal with new and emerging technologies which were directly used by the CLTs in their work.  So what had changed, seeing as how the applications were approved in the past? How were these conferences considered to be job-related in past years, but no longer job-related this year?

Why is there no transparency here?  How is it that this process is done behind closed doors and how is it that a 3 person panel of union administrators gets to make these arbitrary "yay" or "nay" decisions regarding the approval of this grant money without oversight nor a requirement that a detailed and substantial written explanation for the denial be offered. Why is there no process to challenge a disputed decision?

I think the membership should be able to see who has been approved for grants and who has been turned down, lest this awards process turn into something akin to cronyism and patronage for friends of the union officials. I am not claiming this is what is going on, just that without oversight, transparency and accountability, impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety is lurking around every turn.

This actually happened: a CLT applied for attendance at a conference which had as part of its title, the actual name of the CLT's job title, yet his application was turned down because the union review panel claimed the conference is "not related to his job description," when clearly it most certainly was. When such obviously questionable decisions are being made, then even a casual observer can tell that something smells last week's rotting garbage.

These are points I would strongly suggest the leadership address to make sure the awarding of the Professional Advancement Grants process remains untainted and fair:
 
* How many CLTs have submitted applications this year?

* How many Professional Advancement grants have been awarded?
 
* How many have been turned down?
 
* What is the reason given for the denied applications?

* At the end of the year how much of the grant money remains undistributed?   

* Why is this information not available to the membership?   Make it openly available to the membership.
 
Transparency demands that the membership get answers to these questions and that the union make available to us the specific criteria which govern how applications are awarded or denied. This is not chump change we are talking about here and its dispersion should not be arbitrary and secret and determined by the whim of a 3 member panel. To avoid even the hint of impropriety or worse, the union should publish this information to the members without us needing to ask for it.

And lastly, given the importance of this Professonal Advancement Grant, it would behoove us if the union were to provide more information and encouragement to get the members to make use of this development tool. I would suggest that should the union devote even a small percentage of the time and energy to encouraging the use of the ProAd resource as it does to the dissemination of information about causes far flung and tangential to our immediate union business, we would be better served. 

Frank Angel
Chief CLT Brooklyn
Member Local 2334

PSC POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS: WILL THE LEADERSHIP'S IDEOLOGY TRUMP THE MEMBERSHIP'S INTERESTS?

The municipal election season is here again, and the PSC leadership is circulating questionnaires to candidates for mayor, the borough presidencies, comptroller, district attorney, public advocate and members of the City Council. If recent history is a guide, we expect that the union will endorse candidates with little or no chance of winning office. Why be on good terms with the Democrats when you can be locked in a loving embrace with the Working Families Party?

As we've noted before, the New Caucasians have been waging a bizarre protest campaign against Democratic members of the New York State Senate. No one seems to have explained to "First Vice President and Legislative Representative" Steve London that the Democrats are in control of both houses and the governor's mansion in Albany, as well as the City Council. Last time that we checked, our salaries and benefits depend on their good graces, not on the ideological purity of the WFP. But it looks like "fighting for a more just world" is more important than attaining better salaries, benefits and working conditions.

Way to go, Steve-o!

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