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.
