Well, life is funny. There have been so many arguments, discussions etc. over the years, and it took a Penn student with a big mouth who said the equivalent of. LOOK, The Emperor has NO clothes!!"
Not a huge event in and of itself, but the right thing at the right time has such momentum. I tend to think Jannie Blackwell's request was not untoward with regard to the UCD. I have no proof, but I believe things such as this event with the UCD has occurred before; perhaps even at community donor's affairs whose patronage was quite substantial. Jannie knew it and certainly Marty Cabry. It just makes sense politically. On 6/8/07 10:12 AM, "Brian Siano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> /In a message dated 6/7/2007 5:46:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:/ >> /My questions include:/ >> >> / How do we thank John Fenton?/ >> / Can his job and reputation be saved?/ >> / Should we / >> / save his job? / >> / lose UCD? / >> / settle for what we get (and thus deserve)?/ >> / How do we prevent the further co opting of UC by >> Politics, Penn and powerful lurkers?/ >> / Do we support any person or initiative at UCD?/ >> / ?, ?, ?/ >> >> I totally agree with everything Liz asks here. We don't know the >> details - only John Fenton knows EVERYTHING - so we can't judge what >> happened. But, where do we go NEXT? >> >> Didn't this problem come about because the Councilwoman asked John >> Fenton to help out with SOMETHING, and he did? She doesn't dispute >> that that's what happened - the only question is what did she ask him >> to help out with. And then, didn't some student tell the Daily News >> that John did something which was inconsistent with the tax status of >> his employer and the law? Isn't that how the story came out? From >> that start, how did anyone jump to the conclusion that "UCD" is to >> blame? It seems to me that the parties who participated were Jannie >> Blackwell, John Fenton, the student, the Daily News, and perhaps Tom Knox. > Well, we don't really _know_ what happened that day. As far as I can > tell, all parties involved who've spoken on the matter have attested > that Fenton and his crew were working a community event, not a Knox > event: there has been no well-substantiated evidence that Fenton's > people did anything for Knox directly. >> Faced with this accusation from the student, wouldn't any responsible >> employer have no choice but to launch a thorough investigation? >> And wouldn't they have to keep things private till they got to the >> bottom of it? Don't those of you calling for immediate answers >> understand that an employer has to protect his employees' rights? >> Would any of you want your employers updating the public about what >> you might or might not have done wrong, before your company had all of >> the facts? Do you think John Fenton wants that? The daily gossip >> sheet sent out by his coworkers? Are you considering the liability >> issues here, while you are demanding that the UCD give updates to the >> public? > Not exactly, Melani. Yes, UCD had to investigate the allegations. But > given Fenton's popularity, and the public nature of the allegations, the > results of this investigation ought to be made known. What was > determined? Did Fenton's crew actually _do_ anything for Knox's campaign > directly? If so, then was this an honest mistake-- as I said, Fenton > would've been caught between UCD's restrictions, his desire to help > people out, and the prospect of pissing off Blackwell. > > Only then can we adequately evaluate what's been decided. Right now, > without UCD's investigators making the facts known, it really looks as > though they're being very cowardly, and letting a good man go because > of an unsubstantiated allegation. > > I can't see how this helps anything. After all, if UCD would do this to > a real asset like John Fenton, then why would anyone want to work for > them? I'd like to know who _did_ the investigating, and who made the > astoundingly, amazingly boneheaded decision to get rid of John Fenton. > One positive outcome might be to remove such incompetents from whatever > positions they have. > > I'll be the first to agree with you on your other points-- that several > people are enjoying this spectacle, and Fenton's crash-and-burn has > given them an issue they can flog. But this really doesn't reflect well > on UCD at all. > > > ---- > 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>. ---- 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>.
