UPM newsletter

Ponderings of the President

by Ira Lansing

I may be suffering from cinematic deprivation. It may even be 500 channels and nothing on syndrome, but I have noticed on my part a slight drift towards the black and white spectrum. Cinematically this means old Charlie Chan movies (don't ask me why; maybe to see what everyone finds so offensive); on the small screen, old Perry Mason shows (there were a few done in color towards the end, otherwise all of them were dichromatic). Raymond Burr is probably one of the few actors who looks good in black and white since he is actually black and white (check out his hair, circles under the eyes and suits, shirts and ties. All pure black or white). As a kid watching the show I found it very intriguing and impossible to solve who did it before the surprise conclusion. I remember adults groaning over the obtuse circumstances that led to the guilty party. Today, it is easier to solve the old ones. Just follow the person who is now a celebrity. That's right, when he appeared in the series the young Robert Redford was guilty of murder, as were a host of people who are now famous but were not then.

Perhaps this craving is a result of all the legal activity UPM has had, and continues to have. As part of my duties I have appeared in court this summer on behalf of the Union-a chance for Perry Mason live! Unfortunately, as you may suspect, this is one area where life does not imitate television. Have you noticed that Mr. Mason only appears in preliminary hearings. This not only eliminates the need for a jury to be present (save money on production costs?), but allows for startling revelations and looser procedures, not to mention action closer to the date of the murder. It probably also cuts down on legal paperwork. When UPM began one of its legal undertakings on behalf of a part-time instructor who had asserted his Education Code rights for a tenure claim, our first day in court did not occur until more than a year-and-a-half after the initial "crime" was reported. And this first day was merely to set up another day! There was a brief moment when the attorneys were given an opportunity to speak, in order to present any issues that may have been overlooked the first twelve times. The attorney for the District did rise to address the court, but unlike Mr. Mason, he did not prompt anyone in the spectators' section to stand and confess to the deed of assigning a temporary employee more than a 60% load. Too bad. I am also fairly certain that Perry never dealt with language like "petitioners' motion to strike respondents' demurrer to petitioners' first amended complaint is denied." Did we win or lose with that ruling? Actually, that was in favor of UPM, as the judge goes on to say "a trier of fact [is that a judge, or some other individual?] might reasonably find an academic research project to be part of 'teaching'...". Well that's quite clear, so why go on? Even Paul Drake (remember him, the private detective, that Mason regularly used, with the amazing head of white hair) could understand the meaning of that one, without using any of his "sources."

So that's it, the guy confessed, the show is over. Not quite: it is just a commercial break. When we resume the lawyers will exchange more documents to prove what they previously asserted, after which the trier of fact will issue her ruling on or around November 6. Is that like being renewed by the network? And unless justice is truly blind, our own Perry Mason (aka Robert Bezemek) will once again defeat Hamilton Berger.

So there you have it. A summer of reruns. Hopefully you are finding some new adventures while on break. I look forward to seeing all of you at the August general membership meeting.

			Vol. XXI, No. 4 July 2001 Newsletter
	Ponderings of the President by Ira Lansing I may be suffering from cinematic deprivation. It may even be 500 channels and nothing on syndrome, but I have noticed on my part a slight drift towards the black and white spectrum. Cinematically this means old Charlie Chan movies (don't ask me why; maybe to see what everyone finds so offensive); on the small screen, old Perry Mason shows (there were a few done in color towards the end, otherwise all of them were dichromatic). Raymond Burr is probably one of the few actors who looks good in black and white since he is actually black and white (check out his hair, circles under the eyes and suits, shirts and ties. All pure black or white). As a kid watching the show I found it very intriguing and impossible to solve who did it before the surprise conclusion. I remember adults groaning over the obtuse circumstances that led to the guilty party. Today, it is easier to solve the old ones. Just follow the person who is now a celebrity. That's right, when he appeared in the series the young Robert Redford was guilty of murder, as were a host of people who are now famous but were not then. Perhaps this craving is a result of all the legal activity UPM has had, and continues to have. As part of my duties I have appeared in court this summer on behalf of the Union-a chance for Perry Mason live! Unfortunately, as you may suspect, this is one area where life does not imitate television. Have you noticed that Mr. Mason only appears in preliminary hearings. This not only eliminates the need for a jury to be present (save money on production costs?), but allows for startling revelations and looser procedures, not to mention action closer to the date of the murder. It probably also cuts down on legal paperwork. When UPM began one of its legal undertakings on behalf of a part-time instructor who had asserted his Education Code rights for a tenure claim, our first day in court did not occur until more than a year-and-a-half after the initial "crime" was reported. And this first day was merely to set up another day! There was a brief moment when the attorneys were given an opportunity to speak, in order to present any issues that may have been overlooked the first twelve times. The attorney for the District did rise to address the court, but unlike Mr. Mason, he did not prompt anyone in the spectators' section to stand and confess to the deed of assigning a temporary employee more than a 60% load. Too bad. I am also fairly certain that Perry never dealt with language like "petitioners' motion to strike respondents' demurrer to petitioners' first amended complaint is denied." Did we win or lose with that ruling? Actually, that was in favor of UPM, as the judge goes on to say "a trier of fact [is that a judge, or some other individual?] might reasonably find an academic research project to be part of 'teaching'...". Well that's quite clear, so why go on? Even Paul Drake (remember him, the private detective, that Mason regularly used, with the amazing head of white hair) could understand the meaning of that one, without using any of his "sources." So that's it, the guy confessed, the show is over. Not quite: it is just a commercial break. When we resume the lawyers will exchange more documents to prove what they previously asserted, after which the trier of fact will issue her ruling on or around November 6. Is that like being renewed by the network? And unless justice is truly blind, our own Perry Mason (aka Robert Bezemek) will once again defeat Hamilton Berger. So there you have it. A summer of reruns. Hopefully you are finding some new adventures while on break. I look forward to seeing all of you at the August general membership meeting.		Student Complaint Procedure and P4E Negotiations on the Reopeners May Result in Impasse For a while now, the UPM and District have been negotiating use of the Partnership for Excellence funds and the Student Complaint procedure. These talks, while part of normal bargaining, are running parallel to negotiations for a new Contract, but these talks are not going well, and the two sides are on the brink of impasse. The UPM Bargaining Team, seeing the District's reluctance to grapple seriously with the issues, offered to roll those two topics into new Contract bargaining, but the District seems to prefer the stalemate. Of particular concern to the UPM is the District's bargaining approach to the Student Grievance issue. Not only are District representatives unwilling to negotiate, but also, in the case of the Student Complaint procedures, they seem quite willing to violate even the current Contract -specified procedures while the talks are going on. Apparently, the District simply refuses to see how their implementation of the Complaint procedure infringes upon some basic rights of faculty and offends the notion of justice. One example transgression of the many we've chronicled in the past is the District's insistence on conducting secret investigations of faculty behavior based on hearsay. Our Contract now clearly states that a complaint must be initiated by a student, yet the District sees fit to unleash an untempered and unfocused investigation if any administrator hears someone murmur, "I heard that so-and-so did such-and-such in class the other day." The District maintains that the administration is justified in moving against faculty on the basis of third-party claims, even when the original student does not wish to pursue the matter. In addition to that rather startling practice is the matter of the District's maintaining secret files on the faculty under investigation. The current Contract now authorizes the District to keep one Personnel file for each member of the faculty, but during an investigation, the District's complaint investigator Virginia Riegel develops a second secret file in which is kept notes from interviews with unknown students, counselors, faculty, and administrators. The mere fact of a second file isn't at issue: the UPM agrees with the need for compiling facts while the procedure is underway. It is the secret nature of that second file that the UPM cannot abide. Riegel, the investigator who has already claimed that her actions need not adhere to Contract language, asserts that she is authorized to keep her records confidential, out of the reach of the investigated faculty member and out of the hands of the faculty's representative, typically the UPM. To their credit, managers have recently stated that this file is in fact not to be kept secretly. Instead, it must be reserved by Maggie Rumford in Human Resources and made available to the investigated faculty and his or her representative. However, in the most recent case, when asked to produce the file, management reported that it wasn't available to the UPM or the instructor because it was being reviewed by Middleton. This breech of the Contract and even of the District's avowed practice is just more evidence that the entire procedure is simply out of control. Couple the hearsay accusation and the secret file matters to the District's willingness to ignore the core complaint and to pursue unrelated faculty behaviors (as reported last month), and what you get is a "procedure" that violates fundamental rights. The scary thing is that the District doesn't seem to see any problem with any of this. How does one spell "due process"? Whether bargaining over these matters goes to impasse or to new Contract negotiations will be determined soon. We'll keep you posted. Mark Your Calendar! Free Lunch (It's on the Union!) Once again, the UPM will welcome you back to school with a lunch, scheduled for noon on August 17 in the cafeteria on the Kentfield Campus. Enjoy the array of sandwich makings, salads, and cold drinks as you renew contacts with your union colleagues. Then, at 12:45, come to UPM's first General Meeting for the 2001-2002 academic year in room 120 of Fussleman Hall. At the meeting, you will hear a complete report from President Ira Lansing, Treasurer Theo Fung, Chief Negotiator Paul Christensen, and others. Start the year off right; get up to date with the latest information, and enjoy the coffee, tea, and desserts provided by your Union



	Newsletter