Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Transcript of UMass meeting last week

By

The Amherst Bulletin has posted a transcript of last Thursday’s UMass Amherst Faculty Senate discussion of President Wilson’s announced personnel changes and reorganization.  This includes skeptical faculty questions and Sen. Stan Rosenberg’s widely-praised remarks.

Here’s the link (hat tip to my colleague Emery Berger).

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I read the whole thing and I have to say, I disagree with your editorial, Charley.

    <

    p>
    Anytime you have to say you’re not grandstanding, you’re probably grandstanding, with all due respect to Sen Rosenberg. He goes from saying he was blindsided to saying he has very good sources and he’s a sleuth and such and then all the way back to I didn’t know anything until 48 hours ago. Talk about trying to have it both ways. Does he know the inside dope or doesn’t he?

    <

    p>
    Wilson said it’s going to be a year long process and he wants input and steering committees and such. He seemed very direct and straightforward with his presentation and answers.

    <

    p>
    If the interpretation of anything Wilson says is going to be “liar, liar, pants on fire” the discussions aren’t going to be very productive.

    <

    p>
    I love that place, but I fear the attitude is a progression of “you don’t take an interest in us” to “you don’t talk to us” to “you don’t listen to us” to the real attitude, which is “you don’t just do whatever we want you to do.”

    <

    p>
    Lombardi needs to speak, one way or another.

    • We need to hear from Lombardi, that’s for sure. And he ain’t talking — neither to back up Wilson’s version, nor to give his own. Until I hear it directly from Lombardi, I don’t believe Wilson. Sorry.

      <

      p>
      And BTW, I’m not basing my skepticism on what Rosenberg says — merely on what’s right there in the transcript. But since you mentioned Rosenberg, here’s the nutshell:

      <

      p>

      Senator Rosenberg: Excuse me. Taking our Chancellor out of the power position on this campus — that’s the issue. It’s not about the study or the plan. You’re removing our leader without consulting with us, without discussing it, without defending that action.

      <

      p>
      Yeah. If there’s a new plan that’s to be discussed, that’s still fluid, then you don’t force out a sitting Chancellor without warning. It doesn’t work that way.

      • I don’t know why Wilson is presumed to be a liar. I really don’t.

        <

        p>
        It’s being reported that his contract was up, if that counts for anything. It may mean “forcing out a sitting Chancellor” is a sensational description of events.

        <

        p>
        And it goes a long way toward answering the “why now?” questions.

        <

        p>
        I’m glad you don’t base your skepticism on Rosenberg. I know he’s done wonderful things lobbbying for the school, but I didn’t think he came off well in his comments. He could’ve easily gotten a conversation with Wilson 47 hours earlier, right after he sluethed out the news. Instead he chose a public forum so he could grandstand.

        <

        p>
        But to get to the crux of the issue, I don’t agree with his nutshell.

        <

        p>
        Wilson thinks the debate about different plans and organizational models for the University over the next year should be the primary focus. The nutshell says the Lombardi issue comes first.

        <

        p>
        I think whether Lombardi leaves now or then is secondary. And if his contract was up, I worry about it even less. How the University runs is more important than who runs it.

        • then we all need Lombardi’s confirmation of exactly what the discussions and new arrangement entailed.

          <

          p>
          Don’t you find Lombardi’s silence to be verrrry conspicuous — suspicious, even?

          <

          p>
          Hey, I’ll change my mind if and when the facts change. I’m not hearing many facts yet.

          • Again, I think the face is secondary to the organization and structure. How does it work is more important than who’s currenlty at the controls.

            <

            p>
            Should consideration of how the entire University works have been held hostage by Lombardi’s wishes to continue working or his popularity on campus?

            <

            p>
            I hope Lombardi is on board with it and is looking forward to helping Wilson and all the campuses consider and implement a good model for the U. It all works better that way, clearly. So that’s what I’m rooting for.

            <

            p>
            But on the other hand it seems like some folks in Amherst are rooting for a midnight axe job so they can blast Wilson and gain the moral superiority, which they can translate into power and control. (see Rosenberg, Sen. Stan)

            <

            p>
            But again, Lombardi’s contract was up. The President and Board felt they needed to consider the overall organizational structure of the University. I’m not sure how much democracy and input you can force into every process. More is better, yes, but too much is paralyzing.

            <

            p>
            Gotta go.

Archives