[CAFR-L] Some more laughs from the new reappointment process
daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca
Sun Jan 15 10:39:46 MST 2012
I wish you and Kent were right because then it would imply that the millions of dollars in salary we have paid to the admin in the time it took them to come up with this was not being spent to draft nonsense.
But I don't think you can dismiss the mention of negative votes casually. The article says that *negative* votes are to be counted and state that the test for whether somebody is reappointed or not is whether there are sufficient *negative* votes to unseat.
They clearly mean 'count' in the sense of 'does this count' (i.e. used to determine outcome) rather than just 'tally', since the method in fact requires you to tally all votes. And the threshold they are creating is clearly intended to be the thing you use to see whether there are sufficient negative votes. Positive votes in this system are only there to set the bar high enough that the incumbent can't be rejected.
So the point here clearly is to reverse the burden and remove the significance of absence or abstention.
To think of a hypothetical example: let's say you had a committee on which the president, say, wasn't able to make the vote and a student member wasn't appointed or didn't show. Well on the old system we would not count those votes and the incumbent would be stuck looking for 7 positive votes out of whoever is left.
You might think a rational solution to that problem would be to say an incumbent needs some plurality of the votes cast--say 70%--to be reappointed.
But that is only rational if your intention is only to solve the problem you are presented with. It is irrational if you goal is to ensure that no adminstrator can be held accountable and to protect the salaries and perk you and those closest to you enjoy.
If that's your goal, then you want to count negative votes and base the threshold on the total committee size, because that way abstentions and absences in the incumbent's favour. The absent president and missing student from our hypothetical example suddenly help rather than hinder reappointment.
And our goal of ensuring nobody we work with runs any risk of being put back in the classroom is accomplished.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on Rogers
"Robinson, Thomas" <robinson at uleth.ca> wrote:
Postings to this list are *Publicly Archived.* This is an unmoderated list and posters are solely responsible for the content of their messages.
cafr-l mailing list
cafr-l at uleth.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cafr-l