Re: [UC] Reality check
Congratulations, Ray. You are starting to answer questions, about a subject you might even know about. Can you continue, please, though? What you published below doesn't actually provide any information that would support your argument. Let's take a Penn personnel-wrongdoing charge from recent years. (Pick one that contains no criminal issue, to keep it comparable with the UCD case at hand. In other words, not one of your sex-offender staffer cases.) You are saying Penn *never conducts internal investigations* of a non-criminal personnel concern; that they are immediately referred to a third party. Which third party conducts these investigations? Because I don't believe you. I bet, if a Penn employee like yourself is accused of some non-criminal malfeasance, Penn will mount an internal investigation first. I bet the head of that employee's office or department will be charged with ordering the investigation, if it involves a suspected offense against the proper functioning of that office. And I bet information releases to the Penn Gazette, the DP, and the Chronicle of Higher Education will be severely limited pending the outcome of the investigation. You are a Penn staffer. Can you name a specific example for us, that demonstrates a different investigatory path, now or recently employed by Penn? -- Tony West Ray wrote: first, I believe you may be misreading what some of the concerns are. it's that ucd is conducting an investigation of itself by itself (rather than by a neutral 3rd party). second, penn has had several examples in recent years of its own employees, students, administrators and faculty involved in crimes, scandals, wrongdoings. to get an idea of how a non-profit, public-image-is-paramount institution handles situations like these, look at their coverage in penn publications, look at how the situations are handled by third parties, look at how all this is publicly available. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
Bill Sanderson wrote: How many people here--including Al Krigman--would expect an employer to publicly discuss an issue with an employee that might have serious consequences for both? Sure--the employee has been asked not to comment publicly. Sure, the consequences should he do so are likely to be the obvious. How is this different from any other employer any of us have worked for? ok bill, I'll take a stab at it. first, I believe you may be misreading what some of the concerns are. it's not that people expect an employer to publicly discuss an issue with an employee, or even that there are aspects of the process that are confidential. it's that ucd has allowed for some of this to be public (in arenas it can't control), and for some of this not to be made public (in arenas it can control) [and see sharreiff's post for examples]. it's that ucd is conducting an investigation of itself by itself (rather than by a neutral 3rd party). it's that ucd has yet to publicly own the two statements it has released publicly. and so the whole situation becomes 'trial-by-newspaper' / 'appeal by petition', and in the process ucd unwittingly puts itself on trial. people feel entitled to keep asking questions and taking sides so long as ucd gives the appearance that it is not communicating directly while allowing certain statements to be selectively released in public. second, penn has had several examples in recent years of its own employees, students, administrators and faculty involved in crimes, scandals, wrongdoings. to get an idea of how a non-profit, public-image-is-paramount institution handles situations like these, look at their coverage in penn publications, look at how the situations are handled by third parties, look at how all this is publicly available. it's embarrassing, to be sure, and not a little messy, and damned inconvenient -- but you can be sure penn doesn't send someone around to select neighborhood meetings reading statements that don't appear in its own publications (print/online), nor does penn drop statements to obscure philly rags as if they were real-time conversations, and you can be sure penn expects that readers and writers of the penn gazette, the dp, and the chronicle of higher education will weigh in, online and off. for example. .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
Bill Sanderson wrote: How many people here--including Al Krigman--would expect an employer to publicly discuss an issue with an employee that might have serious consequences for both? Not just including me. Perhaps especially me. The employee-employer issue certainly is a private matter unless or until one of them goes public. I was concerned at the start with the issue of a tax-exempt organization violating the IRS code by participating in partisan politics. This was a point that certainly could have been a cause for a citizen's complaint to the IRS. Word was that UCD was going to conduct an internal investigation. This was enough for me, at least, to postpone filing a complaint. Whether I would or not would do this later would depend on how the investigation was conducted, what were the findings, and what policies were in place that prevented it from happening (if it didn't) or were put into place to prevent it in the future (if it did). I won't deny, given my belief that UCD was (and is) not qualified to be the management authority for a NID (i.e., a NIDMA), I saw this as a way to have them prove my point for me. Or, at least, to send a signal to the Puppetmasters at Penn that something was amiss and needed a serious overhaul. (Would I be delighted about this? No. Would I feel vindicated in my judgement and efforts to stop the initiative? Yes.) Well, we haven't found out anything about an internal investigation yet. Maybe we will and maybe we won't. But it's now clear, based on any reasonable interpretation of the several reports about the First Thursday meeting, that the NID initiative is now dead. So my primary concerns are moot. As to my secondary concerns -- what I consider the deleterious effects of what I see as UCD's attempts at social engineering through activities such as development and planning, marketing, and usurping of quasi-regulatory functions -- I believe there's a good chance that the people high on the Penn food chain may now become aware that they've been fed a load of malarkey by the folks they've put in charge of UCD and will take steps to remedy the situation. Why, the strong rebuke by Councilwoman Blackwell may even help them recognize that all the terrific things Glenn Bryant's boss goes around saying the University is doing for everybody aren't widely perceived as so terrific and that the so-called partnership with the community is no partnership but the buying of loyalty through financial support of groups who happen to fit Penn's agenda and anointed vision of what's right. Al Krigman (The guy in that photo, just to the right of center, on the Libertarian high horse) ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
RE: [UC] Reality check
Glenn - I've got to join Liz Campion and ask if you can simplify your posts. If you look at what's below, I think that stuff that you are saying is followed by a signature Paul-this is confusing-it is hard to see who is saying what. Please don't take this as a critique of what you are saying-I'm not passing any judgment on that-just the way the message is formatted makes it very hard to see which statements are yours, and which are Paul Uyehara's-and this does a disservice to both of you and your readers. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: Fwd: [UC] Reality check Dude, If you think my post was a pot shot at you, I'd say you are being a tad self centered. My suggestion was based on the reporting of what happened at the meeting. We know Marty works for Jannie, that Jannie showed up at the meeting apparently intent on raising a fuss about John F and criticizing UCD. The anonymous poster wanted to encourage people interested in the issue to show up. So the question I saw was, who knew in advance that the issue was going to come up, although the agenda was focused elsewhere, and who had an interest in bringing out additional community members who are hyped up on the whole issue? I don't see an alignment between Tony and anti-UCD forces. How would he have the info and how does he gain by getting people to come? What was his motive? How would he gain? Jannie and Marty, OTOH, would benefit, wouldn't they? Does that mean that Marty posted anonymously? Certainly not. Just provides a motive and context. And I don't think you're in a good position to criticize others for trying to interpret events and sharing your interpretations with others. Not at all. Come to the First Thursday meeting at the Walnut Street Library, 40th and Walnut Street for an update on the UCD's investigation into Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell's claim that she asked UCD for help at a community fair or a political rally for Tom Knox. This should be interesting. The meeting starts at 8:00am and a light breakfast will be served. Please inform your neighbors. Dude, it's crazy to suggest that this was posted by any Blackwell ally. Obviously, this was posted by someone wishing to discredit Blackwell: UCD's investigation into Councilwoman Blackwell's claim When did this become Blackwell's claim that UCD is investigating? The trickster tells us we will get an update of the UCD investigation into Blackwell not an unannounced Blackwell complaint! A lot of people expected the illegal UCD activity to come up. I never went to the meeting before, and that's why I went. Committeeman 7 had obviously been someone whom had attended these meetings like a civic association leader. That person would have known that the Councilwoman is a regular at that meeting. THIS IS AN APPEAL TO PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO PUT BLACKWELL ON THE HOT SEAT Blackwell revealed an account forcefully without reservation. It is the pro-UCD gang that is engaging in all sorts of tricks, secrets, deliberate lies and attempts to discredit Blackwell. Dude, read this from your committeeman friend's post: UPDATE ON THE UCD'S INVESTIGATION INTO COUNCILWOMAN Get real dude. You just took a pot shot at Mr. Cabry with your insinuation because of your pro UCD leaning. Paul -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 8:17 am Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:28 PM Subject: Fwd: [UC] Reality check I thought I saw Marty's name on the board list for UCD when I checked earlier this month. I understand he was very present at the first Thursday with Jannie. Seems like he should have been the usual suspect for the committeeman7 message. Right? Paul Hey buddy, You can take pot shots at what I say on the list. But now, you are engaging in this insinuation against people without any support. It was always nutty to accuse a Blackwell associate of that post. Now, you make this type of suggestion. Shame on you. You need to ask the one who brought the report of the fraud, and launched the immediate investigations into voteforandytoy and committeeman 7; how the investigation proceeds. I believe that was Mr. West, if I am not mistaken. Nnelg -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]; University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check - Original
RE: [UC] Reality check
I think this seems complex because so many folks insist on making it that way for their own purposes. John Fenton is an employee. He is part of an internal investigation by his employer into something that happened in the course of his work for them. If they've asked him to keep this confidential, I'm sure that this is optional on his part, but that the likely consequence of breaking that confidence would be an end to the employee relationship. I would expect any lawyer advising him would probably tell him to keep quiet until the investigation is resolved, and perhaps thereafter, depending on the outcome. I don't think there is anything Machiavellian or unexpected here (isn't spell-check marvelous!) How many people here--including Al Krigman--would expect an employer to publicly discuss an issue with an employee that might have serious consequences for both? Sure--the employee has been asked not to comment publicly. Sure, the consequences should he do so are likely to be the obvious. How is this different from any other employer any of us have worked for? I've only had three or so employers thus far, and each has been a non-profit. And I don't see anything unexpected here--all but one of my employers would probably have done the same--the exception being one outfit that operated as a collective where we would have sat in meetings as a whole for a month or so before convincing ourselves about what the right course of action might be---but we wouldn't have done it sitting out in the street in public. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilma de Soto Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:03 PM To: Anthony West; UnivCity listserv Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Importance: High I'll defer to Karen as to the law since the only law I know is the Law of Gravity. However, I DO know that REALLY BIG MONEY can make their own laws (so to speak), and hire enough attorneys to enforce their vision. Therefore, if John Fenton was told not to speak about the circumstances under which he is no longer at the UCD, I would think that a gag order would be correct, whether or not a judge ordered it remains to be seen. Still, if John Fenton violated this agreement, I feel there would CERTAINLY be swift and sure consequences. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Fwd: [UC] Reality check
Dude, If you think my post was a pot shot at you, I'd say you are being a tad self centered. My suggestion was based on the reporting of what happened at the meeting. We know Marty works for Jannie, that Jannie showed up at the meeting apparently intent on raising a fuss about John F and criticizing UCD. The anonymous poster wanted to encourage people interested in the issue to show up. So the question I saw was, who knew in advance that the issue was going to come up, although the agenda was focused elsewhere, and who had an interest in bringing out additional community members who are hyped up on the whole issue? I don't see an alignment between Tony and anti-UCD forces. How would he have the info and how does he gain by getting people to come? What was his motive? How would he gain? Jannie and Marty, OTOH, would benefit, wouldn't they? Does that mean that Marty posted anonymously? Certainly not. Just provides a motive and context. And I don't think you're in a good position to criticize others for trying to interpret events and sharing your interpretations with others. Not at all. Paul -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 8:17 am Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:28 PM Subject: Fwd: [UC] Reality check I thought I saw Marty's name on the board list for UCD when I checked earlier this month. I understand he was very present at the first Thursday with Jannie. Seems like he should have been the usual suspect for the committeeman7 message. Right? Paul Hey buddy, You can take pot shots at what I say on the list. But now, you are engaging in this insinuation against people without any support. It was always nutty to accuse a Blackwell associate of that post. Now, you make this type of suggestion. Shame on you. You need to ask the one who brought the report of the fraud, and launched the immediate investigations into voteforandytoy and committeeman 7; how the investigation proceeds. I believe that was Mr. West, if I am not mistaken. Nnelg -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]; University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check - Original Message - From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check KAREN ALLEN wrote: I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not in a position to refute anything. open questions: are the other ucd employees that were involved with the malcolm x park incident also under gag orders? Excellent question! I hope they haven't been placed on a 2 week leave. also, is it true that marty and glenn bryan were removed from ucd's board? when? were any reasons given why? OK. This is what I know. I remember that Marty Cabry was on the UCD Board at the very beginning. Maybe 1999 or 2001? I had heard a long time ago that he had been removed rather than having quit. For me, the Councilmanwoman just confirmed what I had heard a long time ago. What I think I heard on Thurs.? Councilwoman Blackwell suggesting that both he and Glenn Bryan were removed because of the long working relationship with her. I missed when Glenn Bryan was actually on the Board. It's my opinion that she is confirming what I've asserted, a UCD demand for secrecy. A working relationship should have open communication pathways. Whether it's between a civic association and their members, or between a UCD and the community's elected representative; open communication needs to be encouraged. I have no other information, but I think I understand her complaint. Why should she not have a representative on the board with whom she has a working relationship? The community depends on her to get the best information about what is going on, and if her contacts are removed; the open communication is blocked. and, is the full text of wendell's statement available publicly? when he read it at last thursday's meeting, did he just happen to have a copy with him, or had he been planning on reading it? He read it when, I believe both Freda and I, called out, will you confirm or deny what the Councilwoman is telling us. He did not offer any copies of the statement, but read it from a paper. That's what I experienced, Glenn .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
Re: [UC] Reality check
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:03 AM Subject: Fwd: [UC] Reality check Dude, If you think my post was a pot shot at you, I'd say you are being a tad self centered. My suggestion was based on the reporting of what happened at the meeting. We know Marty works for Jannie, that Jannie showed up at the meeting apparently intent on raising a fuss about John F and criticizing UCD. The anonymous poster wanted to encourage people interested in the issue to show up. So the question I saw was, who knew in advance that the issue was going to come up, although the agenda was focused elsewhere, and who had an interest in bringing out additional community members who are hyped up on the whole issue? I don't see an alignment between Tony and anti-UCD forces. How would he have the info and how does he gain by getting people to come? What was his motive? How would he gain? Jannie and Marty, OTOH, would benefit, wouldn't they? Does that mean that Marty posted anonymously? Certainly not. Just provides a motive and context. And I don't think you're in a good position to criticize others for trying to interpret events and sharing your interpretations with others. Not at all. Come to the First Thursday meeting at the Walnut Street Library, 40th and Walnut Street for an update on the UCD's investigation into Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell's claim that she asked UCD for help at a community fair or a political rally for Tom Knox. This should be interesting. The meeting starts at 8:00am and a light breakfast will be served. Please inform your neighbors. Dude, it's crazy to suggest that this was posted by any Blackwell ally. Obviously, this was posted by someone wishing to discredit Blackwell: UCD's investigation into Councilwoman Blackwell's claim When did this become Blackwell's claim that UCD is investigating? The trickster tells us we will get an update of the UCD investigation into Blackwell not an unannounced Blackwell complaint! A lot of people expected the illegal UCD activity to come up. I never went to the meeting before, and that's why I went. Committeeman 7 had obviously been someone whom had attended these meetings like a civic association leader. That person would have known that the Councilwoman is a regular at that meeting. THIS IS AN APPEAL TO PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO PUT BLACKWELL ON THE HOT SEAT Blackwell revealed an account forcefully without reservation. It is the pro-UCD gang that is engaging in all sorts of tricks, secrets, deliberate lies and attempts to discredit Blackwell. Dude, read this from your committeeman friend's post: UPDATE ON THE UCD'S INVESTIGATION INTO COUNCILWOMAN Get real dude. You just took a pot shot at Mr. Cabry with your insinuation because of your pro UCD leaning. Paul -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 8:17 am Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:28 PM Subject: Fwd: [UC] Reality check I thought I saw Marty's name on the board list for UCD when I checked earlier this month. I understand he was very present at the first Thursday with Jannie. Seems like he should have been the usual suspect for the committeeman7 message. Right? Paul Hey buddy, You can take pot shots at what I say on the list. But now, you are engaging in this insinuation against people without any support. It was always nutty to accuse a Blackwell associate of that post. Now, you make this type of suggestion. Shame on you. You need to ask the one who brought the report of the fraud, and launched the immediate investigations into voteforandytoy and committeeman 7; how the investigation proceeds. I believe that was Mr. West, if I am not mistaken. Nnelg -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]; University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check - Original Message - From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check KAREN ALLEN wrote: I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not in a position to refute anything. open questions: are the other ucd employees that were involved with the malcolm x park incident also under gag orders? Excellent question! I hope they haven't been placed on a 2 week leave. also, is it true that marty
Re: [UC] Reality check
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: [UC] Reality check
I thought I saw Marty's name on the board list for UCD when I checked earlier
this month.
I understand he was very present at the first Thursday with Jannie.
Seems like he should have been the usual suspect for the committeeman7
message. Right?
Paul
Hey buddy,
You can take pot shots at what I say on the list. But now, you are engaging
in this insinuation against people without any support. It was always nutty to
accuse a Blackwell associate of that post. Now, you make this type of
suggestion. Shame on you.
You need to ask the one who brought the report of the fraud, and launched the
immediate investigations into voteforandytoy and committeeman 7; how the
investigation proceeds. I believe that was Mr. West, if I am not mistaken.
Nnelg
-Original Message-
From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]; University City List
UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check
- Original Message - From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check
KAREN ALLEN wrote:
I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's
not in a position to refute anything.
open questions:
are the other ucd employees that were involved with the malcolm x park
incident also under gag orders?
Excellent question! I hope they haven't been placed on a 2 week leave.
also, is it true that marty and glenn bryan were removed from ucd's board?
when? were any reasons given why?
OK. This is what I know. I remember that Marty Cabry was on the UCD Board at
the very beginning. Maybe 1999 or 2001? I had heard a long time ago that he had
been removed rather than having quit. For me, the Councilmanwoman just
confirmed what I had heard a long time ago.
What I think I heard on Thurs.? Councilwoman Blackwell suggesting that both
he and Glenn Bryan were removed because of the long working relationship with
her. I missed when Glenn Bryan was actually on the Board. It's my opinion that
she is confirming what I've asserted, a UCD demand for secrecy.
A working relationship should have open communication pathways. Whether it's
between a civic association and their members, or between a UCD and the
community's elected representative; open communication needs to be encouraged.
I have no other information, but I think I understand her complaint. Why
should she not have a representative on the board with whom she has a working
relationship? The community depends on her to get the best information about
what is going on, and if her contacts are removed; the open communication is
blocked.
and, is the full text of wendell's statement available publicly? when he
read it at last thursday's meeting, did he just happen to have a copy with
him, or had he been planning on reading it?
He read it when, I believe both Freda and I, called out, will you confirm or
deny what the Councilwoman is telling us. He did not offer any copies of the
statement, but read it from a paper.
That's what I experienced,
Glenn
..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam®]
[aka ray]
SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES.
It is very clear on this listserve who
these people are. Ray has admitted being
connected to this forger. -- Tony West
__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
http://www.purple.com/list.html.
-- No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 9:42 PM
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
http://www.purple.com/list.html.
--
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com
Fwd: [UC] Reality check
This, I believe, is why Tony likes face-to-face meetings instead of email or listserv?correspondence. That's mind boggling.? As much time as he spends posting to the list, he must spend the rest of his waking hours engaging in face to face meetings so he can fast talk people.? Hard to believe. Paul -Original Message- From: Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Not cheap at all. I'm replying to this: All this is rapidly evolving even as we tap, of course. Real negotiations about matters of importance never take place on an unmoderated listserv. He posed it as a statement which is why I responded the way I did. That is Tony's style: Broad statements of fact which are, in reality, his opinions. Notice the word never in the second sentence. Really? And important. Important to whom? And who said these particular negotiations were happening here in the first place? No one did. It's a red herring. This, I believe, is why Tony likes face-to-face meetings instead of email or listserv?correspondence.?In person people don't have time to react to this kind of nonsense before the next ridiculous sentence is uttered. In an email people have time to compose an answer based on what was actually said instead of a fleeting impression. Frank On Jun 13, 2007, at 01:50 PM, Brian Siano wrote: Frank wrote: First of all, that is one of the reasons I work for myself. Secondly, if you think this never happens, you are more naive than you let on. Do you honestly believe everything a CEO says publicly about an employee's departure is true? Please say you don't. Why should this situation be any different? According to Jannie Blackwell, one of the conditions of Fenton's severance package is that he not talk about it, Perhaps *that's* why he hasn't said anything. How do you know it's evolving and not over? You're implying you know something the rest of us do not. Do you? So we get the cheapest of the debating tactics: Are you _sure_? Do you really _know_? How do you _really know_? Couldn't you be _wrong_? Jesus, you sound like a freshman who's just read the _Republic_ for the first time. All we know is this: Blackwell says that Fenton was offered a severance package (Could be true or not.). UCD says they're still investigating the issue (Investigating.is a broad term: they might've made their minds up by now, but haven't acted on anything, and they could claim to be investigating.) We can speculate all we want about these two different claims. But there has been no _official_ word that John Fenton has been fired, asked to resign, resigned, or been exonerated. As far as the facts are known right now, Fenton is still an employee of UCD. As far as I can tell, this is what Tony's been saying, and somehow many people here fail to grasp this. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. = AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: [UC] Reality check
It *is* hard to believe yet, as he always says Real negotiations about matters of importance never take place on an unmoderated listserve. (sic) I don't know how he finds time to sleep! Frank On Jun 14, 2007, at 09:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This, I believe, is why Tony likes face-to-face meetings instead of email or listserv correspondence. That's mind boggling. As much time as he spends posting to the list, he must spend the rest of his waking hours engaging in face to face meetings so he can fast talk people. Hard to believe. Paul -Original Message- From: Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Not cheap at all. I'm replying to this: All this is rapidly evolving even as we tap, of course. Real negotiations about matters of importance never take place on an unmoderated listserv. He posed it as a statement which is why I responded the way I did. That is Tony's style: Broad statements of fact which are, in reality, his opinions. Notice the word never in the second sentence. Really? And important. Important to whom? And who said these particular negotiations were happening here in the first place? No one did. It's a red herring. This, I believe, is why Tony likes face-to-face meetings instead of email or listserv correspondence. In person people don't have time to react to this kind of nonsense before the next ridiculous sentence is uttered. In an email people have time to compose an answer based on what was actually said instead of a fleeting impression. Frank On Jun 13, 2007, at 01:50 PM, Brian Siano wrote: Frank wrote: First of all, that is one of the reasons I work for myself. Secondly, if you think this never happens, you are more naive than you let on. Do you honestly believe everything a CEO says publicly about an employee's departure is true? Please say you don't. Why should this situation be any different? According to Jannie Blackwell, one of the conditions of Fenton's severance package is that he not talk about it, Perhaps *that's* why he hasn't said anything. How do you know it's evolving and not over? You're implying you know something the rest of us do not. Do you? So we get the cheapest of the debating tactics: Are you _sure_? Do you really _know_? How do you _really know_? Couldn't you be _wrong_? Jesus, you sound like a freshman who's just read the _Republic_ for the first time. All we know is this: Blackwell says that Fenton was offered a severance package (Could be true or not.). UCD says they're still investigating the issue (Investigating.is a broad term: they might've made their minds up by now, but haven't acted on anything, and they could claim to be investigating.) We can speculate all we want about these two different claims. But there has been no _official_ word that John Fenton has been fired, asked to resign, resigned, or been exonerated. As far as the facts are known right now, Fenton is still an employee of UCD. As far as I can tell, this is what Tony's been saying, and somehow many people here fail to grasp this. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. = AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
[UC] REALITY CHECK CHECK CHECK
The sushi community DEMANDS a new radioactive sushi bar in Clark Park! -- Ross Bender http://rossbender.org
Re: [UC] Reality check
A gag order implies a judge or some other orderer, doesn't it? Wouldn't we be talking more about a confidentiality agreement here, Karen? By its nature, an agreement is a two-way contract. And although I'm no lawyer, I'd imagine either side would be prevented from publishing outright falsehoods about the case at hand, as people are implying UCD is doing. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not in a position to refute anything. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] REALITY CHECK CHECK CHECK
There¹s Mizu Sushi on 40th St. between Chestnut and Sansom Sts: They deliver!! 111 South 40th Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Mon thru Sat 11:00 - 10:00 Tel: 215-382-1745 Fax: 215-382-1605 On 6/14/07 6:19 PM, Ross Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The sushi community DEMANDS a new radioactive sushi bar in Clark Park!
Re: [UC] Reality check
Frank, If you distrust your boss so much that you believe he would say in public, Frank is not fired, after secretly having told you, Frank, you're fired -- then, in my opinion, you should quit now, before things reach this pass. I might note John Fenton has not disputed in public this public contention of UCD's, that he's still an employee. And he's had many an opportunity. All this is rapidly evolving even as we tap, of course. Real negotiations about matters of importance never take place on an unmoderated listserve. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Frank To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check John Fenton may well *be* fired. We've heard two conflicting reports, neither of which, in my opinion, come from a reliable source and both of whom are in a position to know and both of whom have reasons to spin. The truth is we have no idea what happened. Frank On Jun 12, 2007, at 06:28 PM, Anthony West wrote: So Fenton isn't fired, as of today. You were at that meeting and you heard Wendell restate Fenton has not been fired. So there you are. -- Tony West
Re: [UC] Reality check
I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not in a position to refute anything. From: Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:29:19 -0400 I might note John Fenton has not disputed in public this public contention of UCD's, that he's still an employee. And he's had many an opportunity. -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
Yes Karen, That order was reported by Councilwoman Blackwell. That is the one point in her account that I heard someone else confirm at the Thurs. meeting. A reporter across the table from me made a confirming remark. To paraphrase, that's true, Mr. Fenton can't talk about this. Of course, the reporters probably all tried to get a statement from Mr. Fenton, but none has been made. Again with this point, no denial or confirmation was made by Lewis Wendell or any other UCD employee present at the meeting. The reading of the official statement was all that was offered. That's all we know about that gag order report. Glenn - Original Message - From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not in a position to refute anything. From: Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:29:19 -0400 I might note John Fenton has not disputed in public this public contention of UCD's, that he's still an employee. And he's had many an opportunity. -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 9:42 PM You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
First of all, that is one of the reasons I work for myself. Secondly, if you think this never happens, you are more naive than you let on. Do you honestly believe everything a CEO says publicly about an employee's departure is true? Please say you don't. Why should this situation be any different? According to Jannie Blackwell, one of the conditions of Fenton's severance package is that he not talk about it, Perhaps *that's* why he hasn't said anything. How do you know it's evolving and not over? You're implying you know something the rest of us do not. Do you? No one is saying negotiations about this are being conducted on the listserv. People are simply giving their opinions about what they believe has already occurred. I am going to believe that someone else wrote this email and signed your name to it. It really is that preposterous to me. Frank On Jun 13, 2007, at 07:29 AM, Anthony West wrote: Frank, If you distrust your boss so much that you believe he would say in public, Frank is not fired, after secretly having told you, Frank, you're fired -- then, in my opinion, you should quit now, before things reach this pass. I might note John Fenton has not disputed in public this public contention of UCD's, that he's still an employee. And he's had many an opportunity. All this is rapidly evolving even as we tap, of course. Real negotiations about matters of importance never take place on an unmoderated listserve. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Frank To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check John Fenton may well *be* fired. We've heard two conflicting reports, neither of which, in my opinion, come from a reliable source and both of whom are in a position to know and both of whom have reasons to spin. The truth is we have no idea what happened. Frank On Jun 12, 2007, at 06:28 PM, Anthony West wrote: So Fenton isn't fired, as of today. You were at that meeting and you heard Wendell restate Fenton has not been fired. So there you are. -- Tony West
Re: [UC] Reality check
Frank wrote: First of all, that is one of the reasons I work for myself. Secondly, if you think this never happens, you are more naive than you let on. Do you honestly believe everything a CEO says publicly about an employee's departure is true? Please say you don't. Why should this situation be any different? According to Jannie Blackwell, one of the conditions of Fenton's severance package is that he not talk about it, Perhaps *that's* why he hasn't said anything. How do you know it's evolving and not over? You're implying you know something the rest of us do not. Do you? So we get the cheapest of the debating tactics: Are you _sure_? Do you really _know_? How do you _really know_? Couldn't you be _wrong_? Jesus, you sound like a freshman who's just read the _Republic_ for the first time. All we know is this: Blackwell says that Fenton was offered a severance package (Could be true or not.). UCD says they're still investigating the issue (Investigating.is a broad term: they might've made their minds up by now, but haven't acted on anything, and they could claim to be investigating.) We can speculate all we want about these two different claims. But there has been no _official_ word that John Fenton has been fired, asked to resign, resigned, or been exonerated. As far as the facts are known right now, Fenton is still an employee of UCD. As far as I can tell, this is what Tony's been saying, and somehow many people here fail to grasp this. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
KAREN ALLEN wrote: I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not in a position to refute anything. open questions: are the other ucd employees that were involved with the malcolm x park incident also under gag orders? also, is it true that marty and glenn bryan were removed from ucd's board? when? were any reasons given why? and, is the full text of wendell's statement available publicly? when he read it at last thursday's meeting, did he just happen to have a copy with him, or had he been planning on reading it? .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
Not cheap at all. I'm replying to this: All this is rapidly evolving even as we tap, of course. Real negotiations about matters of importance never take place on an unmoderated listserv. He posed it as a statement which is why I responded the way I did. That is Tony's style: Broad statements of fact which are, in reality, his opinions. Notice the word never in the second sentence. Really? And important. Important to whom? And who said these particular negotiations were happening here in the first place? No one did. It's a red herring. This, I believe, is why Tony likes face-to-face meetings instead of email or listserv correspondence. In person people don't have time to react to this kind of nonsense before the next ridiculous sentence is uttered. In an email people have time to compose an answer based on what was actually said instead of a fleeting impression. Frank On Jun 13, 2007, at 01:50 PM, Brian Siano wrote: Frank wrote: First of all, that is one of the reasons I work for myself. Secondly, if you think this never happens, you are more naive than you let on. Do you honestly believe everything a CEO says publicly about an employee's departure is true? Please say you don't. Why should this situation be any different? According to Jannie Blackwell, one of the conditions of Fenton's severance package is that he not talk about it, Perhaps *that's* why he hasn't said anything. How do you know it's evolving and not over? You're implying you know something the rest of us do not. Do you? So we get the cheapest of the debating tactics: Are you _sure_? Do you really _know_? How do you _really know_? Couldn't you be _wrong_? Jesus, you sound like a freshman who's just read the _Republic_ for the first time. All we know is this: Blackwell says that Fenton was offered a severance package (Could be true or not.). UCD says they're still investigating the issue (Investigating.is a broad term: they might've made their minds up by now, but haven't acted on anything, and they could claim to be investigating.) We can speculate all we want about these two different claims. But there has been no _official_ word that John Fenton has been fired, asked to resign, resigned, or been exonerated. As far as the facts are known right now, Fenton is still an employee of UCD. As far as I can tell, this is what Tony's been saying, and somehow many people here fail to grasp this. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
They're not listed on the web site. Frank On Jun 13, 2007, at 05:15 PM, UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote: also, is it true that marty and glenn bryan were removed from ucd's board? when? were any reasons given why? You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
- Original Message - From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check KAREN ALLEN wrote: I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not in a position to refute anything. open questions: are the other ucd employees that were involved with the malcolm x park incident also under gag orders? Excellent question! I hope they haven't been placed on a 2 week leave. also, is it true that marty and glenn bryan were removed from ucd's board? when? were any reasons given why? OK. This is what I know. I remember that Marty Cabry was on the UCD Board at the very beginning. Maybe 1999 or 2001? I had heard a long time ago that he had been removed rather than having quit. For me, the Councilmanwoman just confirmed what I had heard a long time ago. What I think I heard on Thurs.? Councilwoman Blackwell suggesting that both he and Glenn Bryan were removed because of the long working relationship with her. I missed when Glenn Bryan was actually on the Board. It's my opinion that she is confirming what I've asserted, a UCD demand for secrecy. A working relationship should have open communication pathways. Whether it's between a civic association and their members, or between a UCD and the community's elected representative; open communication needs to be encouraged. I have no other information, but I think I understand her complaint. Why should she not have a representative on the board with whom she has a working relationship? The community depends on her to get the best information about what is going on, and if her contacts are removed; the open communication is blocked. and, is the full text of wendell's statement available publicly? when he read it at last thursday's meeting, did he just happen to have a copy with him, or had he been planning on reading it? He read it when, I believe both Freda and I, called out, will you confirm or deny what the Councilwoman is telling us. He did not offer any copies of the statement, but read it from a paper. That's what I experienced, Glenn .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 9:42 PM You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Fwd: [UC] Reality check
I thought I saw Marty's name on the board list for UCD when I checked earlier this month. I understand he was very present at the first Thursday with Jannie. Seems like he should have been the usual suspect for the committeeman7 message. Right? Paul -Original Message- From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED]; University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check - Original Message - From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: University City List UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check KAREN ALLEN wrote: I thought John Fenton was under a gag order. If that's the case, he's not in a position to refute anything. open questions: are the other ucd employees that were involved with the malcolm x park incident also under gag orders? Excellent question! I hope they haven't been placed on a 2 week leave. also, is it true that marty and glenn bryan were removed from ucd's board? when? were any reasons given why? OK. This is what I know. I remember that Marty Cabry was on the UCD Board at the very beginning. Maybe 1999 or 2001? I had heard a long time ago that he had been removed rather than having quit. For me, the Councilmanwoman just confirmed what I had heard a long time ago. What I think I heard on Thurs.? Councilwoman Blackwell suggesting that both he and Glenn Bryan were removed because of the long working relationship with her. I missed when Glenn Bryan was actually on the Board. It's my opinion that she is confirming what I've asserted, a UCD demand for secrecy. A working relationship should have open communication pathways. Whether it's between a civic association and their members, or between a UCD and the community's elected representative; open communication needs to be encouraged. I have no other information, but I think I understand her complaint. Why should she not have a representative on the board with whom she has a working relationship? The community depends on her to get the best information about what is going on, and if her contacts are removed; the open communication is blocked. and, is the full text of wendell's statement available publicly? when he read it at last thursday's meeting, did he just happen to have a copy with him, or had he been planning on reading it? He read it when, I believe both Freda and I, called out, will you confirm or deny what the Councilwoman is telling us. He did not offer any copies of the statement, but read it from a paper. That's what I experienced, Glenn .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 9:42 PM You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: [UC] Reality check
Glenn attended. Seventy people heard him say that. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Glenn To: Anthony West ; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Look at what West suggests: But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. He is asserting according to this wanker manual that he made up, that UCD was compelled to immediately fire John Fenton and lock him out. West, did the manual require UCD to lie about a 2 week suspension? Does the wanker manual demand that they immediately impose a gag order on Mr. Fenton and bar him from talking to his former employees or anyone else?
Re: [UC] Reality check
Yes Liz, Lewis Wendell did not at any time, and my ears were focused, confirm or deny the account given by our Councilwoman, Jannie Blackwell. He reread the statement, we've already seen. Late in the meeting, he asserted that all civic associations have a community representative. Other than that; his lips were sealed. It was our Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell who reported to us about the forced resignation, the immediate changing of locks, the gag order (which I heard confirmed from a reporter sitting near me), and the six month severance package. Of course the gag order would not be effective without the severance package. Councilwoman Blackwell also indicated that Paul Levy of the center city district and a community representative were involved in the decision to treat Mr. Fenton in this way. The name of the community representative happened to be my representative from the Spruce Hill area. I'd like to also confirm your report of Councilwoman Blackwell's denial of wrongdoing. She told us she was at this rally for a very short time during a long day. Not having personal knowledge about the set-up process of the reported event is highly believable. Others on the list have turned this UCD long term policy failure into an assault on our Councilwoman's ethics. Even before the Thursday meeting from the reports, it was obvious that it was a short stop for her on a long day. Examining the UCD policies and procedures is what is indicated after this event; not trying to make Mr. Fenton a scapegoat and unfairly accusing the Councilwoman of intentional wrongdoing. Both of those directions are mean and should be exposed for what these are. My point, is that once Jannie made her statement, any further forays down a path toward termination, appear to be calling our Councilwoman a liar. Liz, one civic association leader on this list called my careful report about Councilwoman Blackwell's account false. He then asserted that Mr. Lewis Wendell clarified that the report we all heard from our city Councilwoman, Jannie Blackwell, was false. That leader with that post was absolutely indicating that our city Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell was a liar, and he offered no support to contradict either her account or my report except to assert that Mr. Wendell clearly clarified a different truth. Those of us in attendance know that Mr. Wendell clarified nothing but instead asserted the existance of an internal investigation. This is a very serious matter, spreading false information and making false accusations publicly, while representing a community civic association. I've requested that the civic association remove this leader from the association but I have gotten no response. The individual said what he said, and he identified himself as a representative of the association at the Thursday meeting. I want to thank you for helping to confirm the reports about the meeting and what our Councilwoman told us about the outrageous treatment of Mr. Fenton. It's personally good to receive corroboration of the basic facts after being called a liar. I've been called a liar so often. But by the reaction of the list, my report of the meeting appeared to be the account generally believed. It still feels better that my report was confirmed. Spreading misinformation, demanding secrecy and power, etc. are the roots of what you call nasty tension. It doesn't matter if its individuals on a listserv or a powerful organization like UCD engaging in this. Sometimes, I think the folks who have been asking for clarification and answers are the people being blamed for the nasty tension. As I said at the end of the meeting to Mr. Bryan, the fighting is inevitable when those in power refuse transparency, accountability, and then engage in extremely questionable activities. It is the failed process that causes the nastiness. I know that I'm a nice person too, but I've been treated with incredible nastiness in this failed UCD process. I'm curious, had you heard about the UCD requirement that Karen shared with the list? The need for the associations to send 3 choices to UCD to receive a UCD board rep. I thought I knew a lot about UCD, but I completely missed that one until Karen shared the story. Thanks again, Sincerely, Glenn. - Original Message - From: Elizabeth F Campion To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check I was also at the meeting. I do not remember either side making many fact based declarative statements. But there were lots of distractions and I may have missed a few words. I did not hear Lewis Wendell state either of: John Fenton has NOT been fired or John Fenton HAS been fired. LW read a statement that referred to suspension pending an ongoing internal investigation. I believe most in the room hear it as some version of, UCD hopes John
RE: [UC] Reality check
Not having been to the meeting, I'd like to ask those who were -- in light of the Councilwoman's testimony, does it appear that no crime was comitted? That John Fenton and his crew were in fact, not setting up a political rally, and the students were either exaggerating or confused? I see Glenn's account here as a reasonable possiblity. And I can see UCD having a freakout if an exaggerated or mis-aimed story hit the newspaper and jeapordized their 501c status. I, like most other people, find it difficult to believe that John Fenton does anything other than lay golden eggs wherever he goes, and I can't see him intentionally doing something illegal. kc - Even before the Thursday meeting from the reports, it was obvious that it was a short stop for her on a long day. Examining the UCD policies and procedures is what is indicated after this event; not trying to make Mr. Fenton a scapegoat and unfairly accusing the Councilwoman of intentional wrongdoing. Both of those directions are mean and should be exposed for what these are. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
- Original Message - From: Kyle Cassidy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Elizabeth F Campion [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:46 PM Subject: RE: [UC] Reality check Not having been to the meeting, I'd like to ask those who were -- in light of the Councilwoman's testimony, does it appear that no crime was comitted? That John Fenton and his crew were in fact, not setting up a political rally, and the students were either exaggerating or confused? I see Glenn's account here as a reasonable possiblity. Kyle, I don't believe anyone ever claimed a crime had been committed. The UCD action, participating in political activity, violated IRS laws. These are real laws but a violation of these would probably not be considered to be a criminal action by any of the known individuals in this occurence. But I don't think the students accounts are refuted by the Councilwoman's beliefs about the event or her denial of wrongdoing. Councilwoman Blackwell was only there a short time and it seems very unlikely she would have been heavily involved in organizing these events. Her personal claim of not knowing about any inappropriate or illegal activity seems very believable so I can certainly take her at her word. We have no idea who gave the orders to break out the Knox stuff and if that person should be held more accountable or also made a simple mistake. From my experiences with UCD, I've suspected and openly asserted on the listserv that I believe John Fenton was never provided appropriate guidelines in several areas. I worked with John when I was organizer of the Clark Park festivals. He's a great guy and I don't believe he would do anything intentionally wrong. If I remember correctly, John had a background in security. UCD wants to be involved with community court, homeless outreach and has this special service policy. In all of these areas, it was the responsibility of Mr. Fenton's superiors and the board to provide him with clear written guidelines. Does UCD have a social worker to advise John on the issues of handeling community court or homeless outreach? Do you see why UCD needed to immediately provide these guidlines at the very beginning of this internal investigation? At the meeting, I said something like; it's outrageous for UCD to treat Mr. Fenton like this when they haven't released the policy guidlines he was operating under. Is it fair of UCD to place this responsibility on Mr. Fenton without guidlines that would have prevented the occurence? John probably should have caught the error since it was a matter of law, but I hold his superiors responsible until they show that they had clear guidlines on the special favors he was told to do. You see, with this right to secrecy demanded by UCD throughout their history, we never can do anything but speculate and go by past experience. The Penn people are not that dumb and if this was all John's fault, there would have been clear written guidlines posted on the web site before the announcement of an investigation and suspension was made. UCD is screwing John because the big shots never designed UCD as an accountable special service organization. You've seen me call the special favor policy, cronyism, and that was highly unfair to John. Now that the shit hits the fan, a disreputable organization like UCD pins everything on one person. As Councilwoman Blackwell said, this is wrong wrong wrong. I hope you better understand my critiicism of the UCD cover-up while defending John and Councilwoman Blackwell? Not publishing clear written guidlines cannot be justified in light of Mr. Fenton's treatment if UCD wants any respect as a responsible trustworthy agency. I personally think some people made some mistakes without malice which led to this scandal. But it is perfectly reasonable of curmudgeons like me to demand the guidlines and a real investigation so that we can find out what else is going on. UCD has been operating like this in our community for years. That needs to stop and this incident shows that. And I can see UCD having a freakout if an exaggerated or mis-aimed story hit the newspaper and jeapordized their 501c status. I, like most other people, find it difficult to believe that John Fenton does anything other than lay golden eggs wherever he goes, and I can't see him intentionally doing something illegal. kc - Even before the Thursday meeting from the reports, it was obvious that it was a short stop for her on a long day. Examining the UCD policies and procedures is what is indicated after this event; not trying to make Mr. Fenton a scapegoat and unfairly accusing the Councilwoman of intentional wrongdoing. Both of those directions are mean and should be exposed for what these are. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845
Re: [UC] Reality check
Liz, Perhaps you have been self-employed so long, you don't know what it means to be fired. I am an employee. I have been an employee for most of the last 30 years. Let me explain to you how it works. If Councilwoman Blackwell says one of her own employees was fired -- that employee was fired. If she says somebody else's employee was fired -- that is not official information and it is trumped by the statement of that employee's real employer. If Councilwoman Blackwell says I am fired, that means nothing. If the President or the Pope says I am fired, that means nothing. If you or Glenn says I am fired, that means nothing. If a straw poll of UC-list says I am fired, that means nothing. If my boss says I am fired, that means I am fired. AQt last Thursday's meeting, 70 witnesses heard John Fenton's boss say Fenton is on paid administrative leave. You cannot be on paid administrative leave AND fired at the same time; they are mutually contradictory conditions. Therefore, Fenton hasn't been fired. His job might be in all sorts of peril, but he is not fired. This is a common possibility of real life, for most real employees. So Fenton isn't fired, as of today. You were at that meeting and you heard Wendell restate Fenton has not been fired. So there you are. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Elizabeth F Campion To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check I was also at the meeting. I do not remember either side making many fact based declarative statements. But there were lots of distractions and I may have missed a few words. I did not hear Lewis Wendell state either of: John Fenton has NOT been fired or John Fenton HAS been fired. LW read a statement that referred to suspension pending an ongoing internal investigation. I believe most in the room hear it as some version of, UCD hopes John resigns so that we won't have to fire him. Several people referred to a Termination package which would allow John to resign, and receive 6 months benefit. I do not remember LW making any comments regarding this. Such a package may be better than sending John back to work in a tainted environment, but maybe a better paradigm for all of us could be reached. IF UCD and JF could achieve public and private accommodations, it could catalyses work place toxins into useful compounds benefiting the people, institutions and neighborhoods that are affected. Such success could be a model for others undergoing work place traumas. I like Lewis Wendell, John Fenton and Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell. Lewis is a good neighbor. I have learned much from him, and in listening to him I have developed more informed views of our neighborhood. For me personally, he has been a voice for introspection and good. I do not know how much of this brouhaha results from his decisions, but I was sorry to see the Lord of the Flies attacks on his character. Two wrongs do not make a right. Jannie is a friend and hero. She defied a Mayor and was arrested in the best of civil protests, FEEDING THE HUNGRY. Even those who did not agree with her methods were forced to think about the problem and more viable solutions. She is not perfect, no one is. But I trust her heart, resilience and stamina. John has been the type of guy we want to call family. He has been helpful, accessible, cheery, accommodating and effective. I do not know how well anyone's work would survive a rigid investigation. In my experience, speed and effectiveness can sometimes require corner cutting and mutual back scratching. I know I would not want my work life disrupted by internal or external audit. And I don't like the idea that everything he has done will be put under a microscope based upon reaction to gossip and a news report which may pan out to be little more than juicy hyperbole born of the creative whining of a PENN miscreant. IMHO, these three people are strong, effective, intelligent and grounded in good will. They could be powerful enemies or a magnificent force for good. I hope they work out their differences and channel their abundant energies and talents for good. Several people accused another neighbor, someone not at the meeting, of being the Machiavelli in this mess. His thumbprint is on too many other projects, too lightly dismiss the accusations. But, I have no fact upon which to base my doubts and nothing concrete to contribute regarding a solution. The person, in question, makes many valuable contributions to our community and puts his time, money and labor behind his ideas. When his goals align with mine I am delighted with the good he does, when they do not align, I feel outgunned. He may be smarter, better trained, more energetic, and have more free time, stamina and resources than I. I do not know why my last message transmitted in Asian
Fwd: [UC] Reality check
Well, I think you overlooked another possibility known to employment law:? your employer doesn't say you're fired, but the law treats you as fired.? Paperwork may say you resigned, for example, but evidence shows you were told resign or be fired.?? Or all of your responsibilities are taken away, you get sent to an outpost with no equipment until you quit, but then claim a constructive discharge. Paul -Original Message- From: Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Liz, ? Perhaps you have been self-employed so long, you don't know what it means to be fired. I am an employee. I have been an employee for most of the last 30 years. Let me explain to you how it works. ? If Councilwoman Blackwell says one of her own employees was fired -- that employee was fired. If she says somebody else's employee was fired -- that is not official information and it is trumped by the statement of that employee's real employer. ? If Councilwoman Blackwell says I am fired, that means nothing. If the President or the Pope says I am fired, that means nothing. If you or Glenn says I am fired, that means nothing. If a straw poll of UC-list says I am fired, that means nothing. If my boss says I am fired, that means I am fired. ? AQt last Thursday's meeting, 70 witnesses heard John Fenton's boss say Fenton is on paid administrative leave. You cannot be on paid administrative leave AND fired at the same time; they are mutually contradictory conditions. Therefore, Fenton hasn't been fired. His job might be in all sorts of peril, but he is not fired. This?is a common possibility of?real life, for most real employees. ? So Fenton isn't fired, as of today. You were at that meeting and you heard Wendell restate Fenton has not been fired. So there you are. ? -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Elizabeth F Campion To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check I was also at the meeting. I do not remember either side making?many fact based?declarative statements. But there were lots of distractions and I may have missed a few words. ? I did not hear Lewis Wendell state either of: ??? John Fenton has?NOT been fired or ??? John Fenton?HAS been fired. LW?read?a statement that referred to suspension pending?an ongoing internal investigation. I believe most in the room hear it as some version of, UCD hopes John resigns so that we won't have to fire him. ? Several people referred to a Termination package which would allow John to resign, and receive 6 months benefit. I do not remember LW making any comments regarding this. Such a package may be better than sending John back to work in a tainted environment, but maybe?a better paradigm for all of us could be reached. IF UCD and JF could?achieve public and private accommodations, it?could catalyses work place toxins into?useful compounds benefiting the people, institutions and neighborhoods that are?affected.? Such success could be a model for others undergoing work place traumas. ? I like Lewis Wendell, John Fenton and Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell. ? Lewis is a good neighbor. I have learned much from him, and in listening to him I have developed more informed views of our neighborhood. For me personally, he has been a voice for introspection and good. I do not know how much of this?brouhaha results from?his decisions, but I?was sorry to see the Lord of the Flies attacks on his character. Two wrongs do not make a right. ? Jannie is a friend and hero. She defied a Mayor and was arrested in the best of civil protests, FEEDING THE HUNGRY. Even those who did not agree with her methods were forced to think about the problem and more viable solutions. She is not perfect, no one is. But I trust her heart, resilience and stamina. ? John has been the type of guy we?want to?call family. He has been helpful, accessible, cheery, accommodating and effective. I do not know how well anyone's work would survive a rigid investigation. In my experience, speed and effectiveness can sometimes require corner cutting and?mutual back scratching. I know I would not want my work life disrupted?by internal or external audit. And I don't like the idea that everything he has done will be put under a microscope based upon reaction to gossip and a news report which may pan out to be little more than juicy hyperbole born?of the creative whining of a PENN miscreant. ? IMHO, these three people are strong, effective, intelligent and grounded in good will. They could be powerful enemies or a magnificent force for good
Re: [UC] Reality check
John Fenton may well *be* fired. We've heard two conflicting reports, neither of which, in my opinion, come from a reliable source and both of whom are in a position to know and both of whom have reasons to spin. The truth is we have no idea what happened. Frank On Jun 12, 2007, at 06:28 PM, Anthony West wrote: So Fenton isn't fired, as of today. You were at that meeting and you heard Wendell restate Fenton has not been fired. So there you are. -- Tony West
Re: [UC] Reality check
Glenn's report is false. John Fenton has not been fired. His employer, Lewis Wendell stated that clearly at the meeting Glenn attended. Seventy people heard him say that. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Glenn To: Anthony West ; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Look at what West suggests: But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. He is asserting according to this wanker manual that he made up, that UCD was compelled to immediately fire John Fenton and lock him out. West, did the manual require UCD to lie about a 2 week suspension? Does the wanker manual demand that they immediately impose a gag order on Mr. Fenton and bar him from talking to his former employees or anyone else?
Re: [UC] Reality check
Indeed? On 6/8/07 10:06 AM, Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glenn's report is false. John Fenton has not been fired. His employer, Lewis Wendell stated that clearly at the meeting Glenn attended. Seventy people heard him say that. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Glenn mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Anthony West mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Look at what West suggests: But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. He is asserting according to this wanker manual that he made up, that UCD was compelled to immediately fire John Fenton and lock him out. West, did the manual require UCD to lie about a 2 week suspension? Does the wanker manual demand that they immediately impose a gag order on Mr. Fenton and bar him from talking to his former employees or anyone else?
Re: [UC] Reality check
You know, Glenn MAYBE he did NOT because he works with and trusts the judgment of those who would make the area over in his view. Someone else suggested that those of us who wanted the area improved should get the backing of those with deep pockets. That is ³ex-AC-tly,² what we thought we were doing when our folks were dealing with Penn, and the leading ³Community Associations² as long-time residents The community associations engaged those persons of color because trusted and helped them go to where THEY felt uncomfortable going. Those residents had respect and long-term history and credibility. They finally saw their ship. come in On 6/8/07 8:32 AM, Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look at what West suggests: But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. He is asserting according to this wanker manual that he made up, that UCD was compelled to immediately fire John Fenton and lock him out. West, did the manual require UCD to lie about a 2 week suspension? Does the wanker manual demand that they immediately impose a gag order on Mr. Fenton and bar him from talking to his former employees or anyone else? Here we go again with straw man: If you think it could have easily have done differently, cite a case in your experience where an employer, faced with a similarly explosive employee investigation, handled it better in your opinion. If you have no real-world knowledge how an agency has handled this differently, just say so. The time for bluster and baloney is over. Don't fake knowledge when a real man's livelihood is at stake. -- Tony West This fake knowledge, bluster and baloney, and when a real man's livelihood is at stake is just Wanker West's usual technique. Wanker now knows that Mr. Fenton was fired long ago and these accusations are both mean and absurd. Look at what he quotes from me to support this attack. Melani loves this kind of crap so I guess we will get one of those thank you Tony posts. Wank away dude! posts- Original Message - From: Anthony West mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check That's right. That's normal. And that's standard. Which is not to say I like it. But that's standard operating procedure for management dismissals and suspension in corporate America these days. There's something close to a manual for it. The manager who doesn't follow the manual can be accused of malfeasance, as can his employer. This is not a manual I would ever have written; but there it is. It's one thing to bash UCD for things it might have done differently. But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. If you think it could have easily have done differently, cite a case in your experience where an employer, faced with a similarly explosive employee investigation, handled it better in your opinion. If you have no real-world knowledge how an agency has handled this differently, just say so. The time for bluster and baloney is over. Don't fake knowledge when a real man's livelihood is at stake. -- Tony West Melani is trying to assert that those of us whom have been critical of UCD caused the harm to John Fenton while UCD is blameless. Folks, the reports we heard today suggest that John was barred almost immediately. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/6/2007 2:03 PM
[UC] Reality check
Melani is trying to assert that those of us whom have been critical of UCD caused the harm to John Fenton while UCD is blameless. Folks, the reports we heard today suggest that John was barred almost immediately. So while some folks were waiting for this internal investigation and John's 2 week suspension to end, UCD knew immediately that Levy was going to fire him. It's very clear Councilwoman Blackwell tried to save his job and while Melani makes a fool of herself she assails her as well Melani's claims are stupid and mean. The people who have been critical of UCD, like me, have been the most vocal critics of making a scapegoat of Mr. Fenton and now we learn he's fired with a gag order too! Obviously, Mr. Fenton was forced out, back before we first started asking questions. It was always mean to try to silence the people's questions claiming that we were the ones hurting Mr. Fenton. Now we have clear indications of how asanine those claims have been. Had we stood up to UCD's lack of accountability in the past, that might have prevented this. Anyone who did try always had to face these mean spirited attacks from Melani and the others.
Re: [UC] Reality check
That's right. That's normal. And that's standard. Which is not to say I like it. But that's standard operating procedure for management dismissals and suspension in corporate America these days. There's something close to a manual for it. The manager who doesn't follow the manual can be accused of malfeasance, as can his employer. This is not a manual I would ever have written; but there it is. It's one thing to bash UCD for things it might have done differently. But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. If you think it could have easily have done differently, cite a case in your experience where an employer, faced with a similarly explosive employee investigation, handled it better in your opinion. If you have no real-world knowledge how an agency has handled this differently, just say so. The time for bluster and baloney is over. Don't fake knowledge when a real man's livelihood is at stake. -- Tony West Melani is trying to assert that those of us whom have been critical of UCD caused the harm to John Fenton while UCD is blameless. Folks, the reports we heard today suggest that John was barred almost immediately.
