RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:27 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19060

Carmen


Yeah, you're done, man.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:04 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:46 am
Posts: 1566

First, I have not complained one time about #metoo so maybe you should direct that part of your question elsewhere.

Second, as a young manager I became angry and terminated someone on the spot. I have always regretted that decision. I might have terminated this individual anyway but I do not believe in making those decisions while you are angry. So I do not know if I had all the facts because I didn't give the man a chance to explain himself. I told myself that I would never make that mistake again and I never have.

Nice to know that you have a history of being an unqualified manager that has made poor decisions. Maybe your boss made a poor decision hiring you for that position?

_________________
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence.....I think not!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:43 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
Terminations are hard as they represent failures. Sometimes it's the manager. Sometimes the employee. Sometimes both. Not all relationships work.

As far as your second paragraph on Sam. I think his last post should clear up any questions about where he stands. It's okay to say there should be a process. That everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves. Even guilty people. And you shouldn't just fire someone based upon what other people may think. Who could argue with that? But sometimes those decisions must get made. It's part of managements job to make them. Not the public. I am not saying that public opinion isn't sometimes a factor or that life is fair. It isn't. But as a manager you do your best to strike that balance.

JMHO

Either Sam was full of shit the first time, or full of shit now. It's pretty simple. He's just dancing, but you do that too, so you sympathize.

So, as a manager, what do YOU do, Joe? You have two women that come to you, and accuse another manager of some pretty nasty crap. Say he's wanting quid pro quo - demanding sex for favors. They have no proof other than their word, and the manager denies it and calls them liars. They tell their friends, and now all the women in the shop want him gone.

Of course, in the past, you believe the man, and demand proof before you fire a man.

Does that change?

No, Joe, there's no perfect answers. But how we've done things in the past never worked. In the case in my workplace some years ago, with overwhelming evidence and over twenty witnesses willing to testify, the predator was just moved to another area, and the woman was just paid off a portion of a year's salary, and not offered her job back.

Of course, the company touted their "zero-tolerance" policy, but that only pertained to hourly workers. They protected the manager class.

Like I said to open this thread, Joe, this means a massive change in the culture, one that we need. Sam has argued for the status quo. When questioned about recent events, he refused to answer for pages and pages. Then he filibustered and obfuscated.

How about you, Joe? Do YOU think the culture has changed? Will you see charges in the future in a different light than you have in the past? Tell me - are you more concerned that women are listened to and believed than you are concerned that men get "due process"? If the latter, do you feel that nothing has changed in how you would handle such complaints?

Bottom line - if it's "he said, she said", no evidence, and the charges are serious, what do you do?

These are true concerns for the future going forward. As a manager, I'd love to hear your views. I know mine, but I've always been on the women's side. Guys like glen have the view that "bitches lie" and women aren't to be believed, that women just want to make up shit to ruin a good man. They're always "good men", aren't they?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:22 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12697
Location: Sunny South Florida
In an ideal world, workplace investigations of all employer policy violations, not just sexual harassment, would be done fairly and diligently by the HR department, which would conduct an impartial and objective examination of what the worker was charged with (even if it was theft, or saying bigoted things on social media, or violating the drug use policy... etc.), and then suggest if they were grounds for termination.

I would think that's what "due process" means in a work environment, since it's really a legal standard relating to legal proceedings. Either lawsuits or criminal cases.

You can stop laughing now. We don't live in that ideal world, and aren't even close. One can dream, though. Employees get the shaft all the time for things they didn't do, and yes, women accusing esp. management of harassment are routinely ignored.

Heck, I dream of a world where bosses might actually ask and involve their employees in workplace policy and make their workplaces more democratic. I like labor unions because they're the closest we get to actually doing that.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16840
In an ideal world, workplace investigations of all employer policy violations, not just sexual harassment, would be done fairly and diligently by the HR department, which would conduct an impartial and objective examination of what the worker was charged with (even if it was theft, or saying bigoted things on social media, or violating the drug use policy... etc.), and then suggest if they were grounds for termination.

I would think that's what "due process" means in a work environment, since it's really a legal standard relating to legal proceedings. Either lawsuits or criminal cases.

You can stop laughing now. We don't live in that ideal world, and aren't even close. One can dream, though. Employees get the shaft all the time for things they didn't do, and yes, women accusing esp. management of harassment are routinely ignored.

Heck, I dream of a world where bosses might actually ask and involve their employees in workplace policy and make their workplaces more democratic. I like labor unions because they're the closest we get to actually doing that.


Who's laughing??? I had a complaint filed against me by the woman supervisor of a team of case managers (all women) who worked in a program where I was one of four clinical counselors. I'm one of the lucky ones who had the case investigated by a thorough, objective and impartial HR department, and the investigation was handled personally by the director of HR. Scared this shit outta me. Anyway, after interviews with all staff involved in the program, I was completely cleared and the supervisor who filed the complaint was instructed to have no contact with me in the future. Her manager went to my manager, pissed off, and said something like "How is this program going to work if there's an internal protective order on my supervisor." My boss told her that her supervisor would just have to figure it out. And...I'll never forget, years later when I left the agency my boss came to me and said, "HR was not going to tell you this Ike, but I will. They decided that she was eroticizing you (a term I had never heard before) and pissed off that you showed no interest."

So...even though the outcome could not have been better, and the support more validating...the thing was a three month long nightmare from hell.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Ike Bana on Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12697
Location: Sunny South Florida
Your situation sounds well handled, Ike. It's how all cases like that should be handled. I certainly wouldn't find funny your three month hell, wasn't saying that.

Unfortunately, I think Carmen is quite right that many HR departments are neither as fair, diligent, or conscientious. And sometimes just ignore complaints from women against male supervisors.

And, like you keep saying, this is an at-will employer society. Which means, in the end, your boss can fire you "just cuz" (*) and really doesn't need an HR investigation to do it.

(*) Not because of race or protected status, but just about anything else. Or not, if you have tenure or union-based due cause protections.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
Either Sam was full of shit the first time, or full of shit now. It's pretty simple. He's just dancing, but you do that too, so you sympathize.

So, as a manager, what do YOU do, Joe? You have two women that come to you, and accuse another manager of some pretty nasty crap. Say he's wanting quid pro quo - demanding sex for favors. They have no proof other than their word, and the manager denies it and calls them liars. They tell their friends, and now all the women in the shop want him gone.

Of course, in the past, you believe the man, and demand proof before you fire a man.

Does that change?

No, Joe, there's no perfect answers. But how we've done things in the past never worked. In the case in my workplace some years ago, with overwhelming evidence and over twenty witnesses willing to testify, the predator was just moved to another area, and the woman was just paid off a portion of a year's salary, and not offered her job back.

Of course, the company touted their "zero-tolerance" policy, but that only pertained to hourly workers. They protected the manager class.

Like I said to open this thread, Joe, this means a massive change in the culture, one that we need. Sam has argued for the status quo. When questioned about recent events, he refused to answer for pages and pages. Then he filibustered and obfuscated.

How about you, Joe? Do YOU think the culture has changed? Will you see charges in the future in a different light than you have in the past? Tell me - are you more concerned that women are listened to and believed than you are concerned that men get "due process"? If the latter, do you feel that nothing has changed in how you would handle such complaints?

Bottom line - if it's "he said, she said", no evidence, and the charges are serious, what do you do?

These are true concerns for the future going forward. As a manager, I'd love to hear your views. I know mine, but I've always been on the women's side. Guys like glen have the view that "bitches lie" and women aren't to be believed, that women just want to make up shit to ruin a good man. They're always "good men", aren't they?


Since I have been managing people in the workplace, a great number of my staff has always been women. Lots of women work in the accounting department. I have never tolerated sexual harassment by a member of my staff nor have I tolerated sexual harassment towards a member of my staff. So while the culture may be changing elsewhere, and that is a good thing, I have never condoned or tolerated such behavior. Period. That being said, not tolerating sexual harassment and due process are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Nor should they be. Everybody deserves to be heard. Not every set of facts and circumstances are the same as much as you might like them to be. As a manager, it is my belief you should make people decisions impartially and based on facts. I don't think you can be impartial if you pick one side or the other before hearing the facts. Your decision will only reflect your incoming bias or your preconceived notion. That is the same thing you were complaining about when you said men were always believed over the women in the past. If that is improper then the reverse of that is also improper. Isn't it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:44 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12697
Location: Sunny South Florida
I have my doubts about Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broadrick, not because they're women, they accused a Democrat, or their political leanings, but because of facts in their case.

I'm not going to return to the subject, but that's why.

As for Al Franken, there were uncertainties as to what he actually did, and I have my doubts even if he did everything that was alleged, he should have been removed from office. But, of course, he resigned, and that was his choice.

In the case of John Conyers, I like the man as a politician, but unfortunately everything I've read about the circumstances suggest a greater likelihood of severity and guilt than Franken, so no, I'm not going to defend him "just because he was a liberal Democrat". He also made his decision to resign in December; it was his decision.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:57 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11442
Either Sam was full of shit the first time, or full of shit now. It's pretty simple. He's just dancing, but you do that too, so you sympathize.

So, as a manager, what do YOU do, Joe? You have two women that come to you, and accuse another manager of some pretty nasty crap. Say he's wanting quid pro quo - demanding sex for favors. They have no proof other than their word, and the manager denies it and calls them liars. They tell their friends, and now all the women in the shop want him gone.

Of course, in the past, you believe the man, and demand proof before you fire a man.

Does that change?

No, Joe, there's no perfect answers. But how we've done things in the past never worked. In the case in my workplace some years ago, with overwhelming evidence and over twenty witnesses willing to testify, the predator was just moved to another area, and the woman was just paid off a portion of a year's salary, and not offered her job back.

Of course, the company touted their "zero-tolerance" policy, but that only pertained to hourly workers. They protected the manager class.

Like I said to open this thread, Joe, this means a massive change in the culture, one that we need. Sam has argued for the status quo. When questioned about recent events, he refused to answer for pages and pages. Then he filibustered and obfuscated.

How about you, Joe? Do YOU think the culture has changed? Will you see charges in the future in a different light than you have in the past? Tell me - are you more concerned that women are listened to and believed than you are concerned that men get "due process"? If the latter, do you feel that nothing has changed in how you would handle such complaints?

Bottom line - if it's "he said, she said", no evidence, and the charges are serious, what do you do?

These are true concerns for the future going forward. As a manager, I'd love to hear your views. I know mine, but I've always been on the women's side. Guys like glen have the view that "bitches lie" and women aren't to be believed, that women just want to make up shit to ruin a good man. They're always "good men", aren't they?


I've not been dancing around, it is you who are the ballerina.

I talked about the need for due process, due process does not necessitate a trial in a court for many cases. Due process is dealt with by a trial, or by a plea, or a willing resignation. This is a case by case issue and one size doesn't fit all cases.

You are the asshole who has been stuffing words in my mouth and insisting that what you stuffed there was what I meant when what I said was taken out of it's original context. Or the context is changed by a new case whth different details to be dealt with.

You are the asshole who has been trolling this issue of my personal opinion from thread to thread for a number of days, and for what!

Big dogs indeed! Little dogs ought to hide under the porch. GoUnion you have the choice of either dropping this now, or go fucking yourself.

:|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I've not been dancing around, it is you who are the ballerina.

I talked about the need for due process, due process does not necessitate a trial in a court for many cases. Due process is dealt with by a trial, or by a plea, or a willing resignation. This is a case by case issue and one size doesn't fit all cases.

You are the asshole who has been stuffing words in my mouth and insisting that what you stuffed there was what I meant when what I said was taken out of it's original context. Or the context is changed by a new case whth different details to be dealt with.

You are the asshole who has been trolling this issue of my personal opinion from thread to thread for a number of days, and for what!

Big dogs indeed! Little dogs ought to hide under the porch. GoUnion you have the choice of either dropping this now, or go fucking yourself.

:|

No, you stuffed words into your own mouth (bolding mine):

I'm becoming better at resisting the temptation to speculate about whether the charges these women bring are valid or invalid. At first i did a little of that. But then I realized that I can't possibly read an article or two about it and know.

I stand for due process. Neither believing or disbelieving anyone. I say allow due process of courts of law to sort out the evidence. I'm done with calling for people to resign or be fired based upon an unruly mob's suspicion.


That's the post. The whole context. I gave you a chance to change it, instead you doubled down and said I was the unruly mob.

And fuck you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Since I have been managing people in the workplace, a great number of my staff has always been women. Lots of women work in the accounting department. I have never tolerated sexual harassment by a member of my staff nor have I tolerated sexual harassment towards a member of my staff. So while the culture may be changing elsewhere, and that is a good thing, I have never condoned or tolerated such behavior. Period. That being said, not tolerating sexual harassment and due process are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Nor should they be. Everybody deserves to be heard. Not every set of facts and circumstances are the same as much as you might like them to be. As a manager, it is my belief you should make people decisions impartially and based on facts. I don't think you can be impartial if you pick one side or the other before hearing the facts. Your decision will only reflect your incoming bias or your preconceived notion. That is the same thing you were complaining about when you said men were always believed over the women in the past. If that is improper then the reverse of that is also improper. Isn't it?

So, you seem to be arguing for the status quo. Absent any solid proof, the woman isn't believed, right?

It's a male dominated society, and some of us what to keep it that way. Where do you stand?

Not trying to be a wiseass here - but you say you don't tolerate any sexual harassment - but where do you draw the line. What if a woman complains that a man is leering at her, but he denies it? Do you not tolerate that? What do you do in that situation?

Truth is, the rules are going to change. Are you going to try to hold onto the status quo?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
So, you seem to be arguing for the status quo. Absent any solid proof, the woman isn't believed, right?

It's a male dominated society, and some of us what to keep it that way. Where do you stand?

Not trying to be a wiseass here - but you say you don't tolerate any sexual harassment - but where do you draw the line. What if a woman complains that a man is leering at her, but he denies it? Do you not tolerate that? What do you do in that situation?

Truth is, the rules are going to change. Are you going to try to hold onto the status quo?


As I posted previously "As a manager, it is my belief you should make people decisions impartially and based on facts." Now I don't know what the status quo is for everybody else but making decisions impartially and based on the facts is the best way I know to get to the unbiased truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

As I posted previously "As a manager, it is my belief you should make people decisions impartially and based on facts." Now I don't know what the status quo is for everybody else but making decisions impartially and based on the facts is the best way I know to get to the unbiased truth.

I asked several questions and scenarios. Could you answer them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I asked several questions and scenarios. Could you answer them?


1. So, you seem to be arguing for the status quo. Absent any solid proof, the woman isn't believed, right?

No. As I posted "I don't know what the status quo is for everybody else but making decisions impartially and based on the facts is the best way I know to get to the unbiased truth."

2. It's a male dominated society, and some of us what to keep it that way. Where do you stand?

As I posted "I don't know what the status quo is for everybody else but making decisions impartially and based on the facts is the best way I know to get to the unbiased truth." Unbiased and impartial means setting aside bias towards either males or females.

3. Not trying to be a wiseass here - but you say you don't tolerate any sexual harassment - but where do you draw the line. What if a woman complains that a man is leering at her, but he denies it? Do you not tolerate that? What do you do in that situation?

As I posted "It is my belief you should make people decisions impartially and based on facts."

4. Truth is, the rules are going to change. Are you going to try to hold onto the status quo?[/quote]

As I posted "I don't know what the status quo is for everybody else but making decisions impartially and based on the facts is the best way I know to get to the unbiased truth."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
All a cop-out. It's a nice way to use a lot of words to say nothing, Joe. C'mon, can't you do better than that? Is that what you'd tell someone who comes to you with a complaint? Just keep repeating that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:48 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
All a cop-out. It's a nice way to use a lot of words to say nothing, Joe. C'mon, can't you do better than that? Is that what you'd tell someone who comes to you with a complaint? Just keep repeating that?

I'm not going to play 20 questions with you. I stated quite clearly what my standard would be and how I would approach these types of allegations. Now if you have a better standard than "unbiased", "impartial"."fact based" approach to problem solving then put it out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:54 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
I'm not going to play 20 questions with you. I stated quite clearly what my standard would be and how I would approach these types of allegations. Now if you have a better standard than "unbiased", "impartial"."fact based" approach to problem solving then put it out there.

Once again, it's basic bullshit to keep to the status quo. Since you can't use them to actually talk about an issue, they are just there to use as a smoke screen.

Here's the REAL world, Joe: Man makes a joking sexual comment to a woman. She takes offense. Guy says "but it was just a little joke".

Of course you can't use "unbiased", "impartial", "fact based" because you use it to say how unbiased you are in a biased world.

Question: Have you taken sexual harassment training?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
Once again, it's basic bullshit to keep to the status quo. Since you can't use them to actually talk about an issue, they are just there to use as a smoke screen.

Here's the REAL world, Joe: Man makes a joking sexual comment to a woman. She takes offense. Guy says "but it was just a little joke".

Of course you can't use "unbiased", "impartial", "fact based" because you use it to say how unbiased you are in a biased world.

Question: Have you taken sexual harassment training?


I asked you what standard you would apply. You never answered. If you have a better standard based upon your sexual harassment training then put it out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I asked you what standard you would apply. You never answered. If you have a better standard based upon your sexual harassment training then put it out there.

I say the status quo no longer works. We need to come up with a new one. Saying there needs to be proof for you to judge means that anything done privately can't be proven, so you must find the offender not guilty, and that's no longer going to work. First - the system is biased. My standard is everyone is to be treated with dignity and respect.

Have you taken sexual harassment training?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
I say the status quo no longer works. We need to come up with a new one. Saying there needs to be proof for you to judge means that anything done privately can't be proven, so you must find the offender not guilty, and that's no longer going to work. First - the system is biased. My standard is everyone is to be treated with dignity and respect.

Have you taken sexual harassment training?


Approaching problems in an unbiased and objective manner is treating everyone with dignity and respect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Approaching problems in an unbiased and objective manner is treating everyone with dignity and respect.

Another cop-out. I guess if you just keep repeating the same thing women will just give up and withdraw a complaint?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6531
Another cop-out. I guess if you just keep repeating the same thing women will just give up and withdraw a complaint?

Thats not what I said at all. Unbiased and impartial means you don't automatically dismiss an allegation. You take them all seriously. You don't make decisions in a vacuum. These are people and not just a generic woman A or man B. In the real world, there are other facts. These people have co-workers. These people have history. There are all kinds of facts to consider and ways to corroborate or dismiss those facts. You can't just dismiss an allegation with a lame excuse like " I didn't see anything in his character to make me believe her story". That excuse sound familiar to you? You learn that one in your sexual harassment training?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19060
Have you taken sexual harassment training?


Image

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:58 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
Thats not what I said at all. Unbiased and impartial means you don't automatically dismiss an allegation. You take them all seriously. You don't make decisions in a vacuum. These are people and not just a generic woman A or man B. In the real world, there are other facts. These people have co-workers. These people have history. There are all kinds of facts to consider and ways to corroborate or dismiss those facts. You can't just dismiss an allegation with a lame excuse like " I didn't see anything in his character to make me believe her story". That excuse sound familiar to you? You learn that one in your sexual harassment training?

Why won't you answer my question about whether you've had training?

I keep pointing out that it's hard to base things on facts when you don't have any witnesses or proof. Or any way to corroborate things. That's what happens in the real world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3891
Debate over MSU, U-M, WSU board selection continues;

Quote:
Proposals to change the way the boards are selected at Michigan State University, University of Michigan and Wayne State University are unlikely to see a vote in the House of Representatives.

Introduced in the wake of a sexual abuse scandal at Michigan State University and widespread calls for the MSU board of trustees to resign, Republican lawmakers said Thursday that the board members at the three universities should be chosen in the same way as 12 other public universities in the state – appointed by the governor.

“It transitions the three universities over to an appointment system. And as of Jan. 1, 2019, the boards will be dissolved and appointed by whoever is elected governor in 2018,” said state Rep. James Lower, R-Cedar Lake..........


this cultural change seems like more of the same

Quote:
..........“I do not understand moving this from voters having direct ability to affect that election to a gubernatorial process,” said Rep. Adam Zemke, D-Ann Arbor. “Some of the gubernatorial appointments we’ve gotten — look at the debacle in Flint — I don’t see how this increases accountability.”..........


people have laser focused their anger on things that are in alignment with the status quo like aiding job insecurity and doing away with due process.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sam Lefthand and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group