Reply to Director of OLMS, DoL, regarding ASC election challenge

December 31, 2010

John Lund, Director
Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
Department of Labor

Dear Mr. Lund:

On the one hand, I am pleased to report that you have prevailed upon AAUP to reimburse Dr. George Pieczenik the $300 owed to him.

On the other hand, I am taken aback by your unwillingness to even RECEIVE from me a response to Ms. Fox's decision regarding my election challenge for the AAUP ASC Chair election. Therefore, you are uninformed.

Further, you claim that "Additionally, you offer no support for your claim that the OLMS Washington District Office and the election contractor, TrueBallot, treated candidates unequally or showed bias to particular candidates".

Yet, NO ONE in the Department of Labor, Ms. Fox included, ever asked me for any documentation whatsoever pursuant to my filing of the election challenge. Surely, a proper investigation requires examination of any and all evidence.

I have sent to you one important documentation in a separate email. That message is attached in this message as "Fwd RE Candidate Statement". It clearly provides evidence of unequal treatment of candidate in that the email distribution for the preferred candidate of the AAUP leadership was sent from election@aaup.org against mine which was sent from trueballot@electionadmin.com and lost to 2500 to 3000 voters, as reported to me by Nick Koumoutseas of TrueBallot.

I await your response,

Paul Zarembka

Attachment:

Dear Mr. Lund:

Below is the message I received from TrueBallot in the evening of June 24, 2010.

When my candidacy message went out on June 1, 2010, it went from the trueballot@electionadmin.com domain. Therefore, by TrueBallot's own testimony below, 2500 to 3000 voters never received that June 1 statement of my candidacy for Chair of the ASC due to spam and other filtering. Most spam and many filters delete relevant messages, which is why TrueBallot mentions "lose" (contrary to AAUP claim). No replacement of my candidate message was ever sent from the election@aaup.org domain.

The preferred candidate of the AAUP leadership, however, did have her June 3, 2010 message sent from election@aaup.org and thus her candidate statement was received by those 2500 to 3000 voters who had not received mine. You can note that June 3 was the approximate date voters received their ballots.

Please note that I did not approve of the use of the @aaup.org domain by any candidate, myself included.

This change in use of the domain for distribution of candidate statements was demonstrable unequal treatment of candidates, by any measure.

Paul Zarembka


-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	RE: Candidate Statement
Date:	Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:39:33 -0400
From:	Nick Koumoutseas
Reply-To:	v
To:	'Paul Zarembka'

I will make that change and resend.

as far as the "from" line:
1) Kathleen should make that decision
2) You will lose 2500 to 3000 deliveries using trueballot@electionadmin.com
 due to spam and other filtering

Communication to AAUP Committee A members

[Update: November 18, 2010

Committee A, Academic Freedom, met November 5 and 6, 2010. I have learned that the committee showed no interest in this Polish faculty member fired for protesting violation of his academic freedom.

I am sorry to have to say that I can only interpret this to mean that AAUP is no longer interested in defending academic freedom. It did not even send a letter of inquiry to any administrative person.

To clarify point 3 below, the union UUP President did not take the case to Step 2 of the contractual grievance process. He simply claimed that SUNY is able to non-renew an adjunct for any reason. In other words, he considers the contract article protecting academic freedom to be irrelevant for contingent faculty.

In sum, neither AAUP nor his union does anything for this faculty member.]

November 1, 2010

Dear AAUP Committee A members:

I understand that the AAUP NYS Conference voted about a week ago to ask you to take up the case of Professor xxx, who was fired from his one-year adjunct appointment at SUNY at Buffalo after he protested violation of his academic freedom in teaching.

I attach the notes used in preparing for his grievance. This is not, by any means, the full file, but merely an aid in helping you understand what happened to Professor xxx. I feel that this case is about as strong a case of an academic freedom violation that AAUP is likely to get, in this case an action against an adjunct from a foreign country. We build for other contingent faculty when we work from strong cases.

1. xxx has had FOUR international teaching awards to come to various U.S. universities, one of which was a Fulbright-Hayes to University of Washington. This is unquestionable prima facie evidence of teaching competence. Period. To FIRE him midway thru his appointment at UB is absolutely unconscionable (absent his doing something really BAD - which he didn't). I think almost everyone who hears this agrees.

2. Then, we have what actually happening to him, all of which transpired before his end of semester student evaluations were obtained - which were in fact 'good'. I don't need to get into the case very much because that is what an AAUP investigation should to be doing. Nevertheless, the hearing notes are offered to aid your consideration. Note that the basic agreement among SUNY at Buffalo, the Kosciuszko Foundation and xxx was for ONE full academic year, but had to be broken into two, shortly before his arrival, only for visa reasons (later, used by the university's for its advantage).

3. Regardless of what union UUP eventually did, this case cries for AAUP investigation. (In my view, President Phil Smith of UUP should have asked for AAUP's help while filing Step 2.)

4. AAUP investigating this case has the unanimous support of the UUP center chapter board at SUNY at Buffalo.

Thank you for your consideration and I would pleased to answer any questions or be of any help that AAUP may request.

Paul Zarembka 716-645-8686
Professor of Economics, and
Grievance Officer for Academics, UUP center chapter
SUNY at Buffalo

RE: Communication to Director of OLMS, DoL, regarding ASC election challenge

On October 25, Director John Lund refused my request of October 7, 2010, to provide him "a detailed reply to the premature 'dismissal' of my complaint by your Office of Enforcement".

I am considering my next step regarding the June 2010 election for ASC Chair, AAUP, an election that was heavily biased toward the person endorsed by the AAUP leadership. The lack of genuine electoral democracy was stunning. The eligible voter participation was low.

Reply to Response of Gary Rhoades

October 20, 2010

Gary Rhoades, General Secretary, AAUP

Dear Gary Rhoades,

By your email last night, you have:

1. confirmed that you will not address a violation of academic freedom without communication from the "system leadership", even though SUNY-Buffalo union chapter unanimously asked for an AAUP investigation of an academic freedom violation and firing of a faculty member.

You are thereby changing or denying that AAUP has a policy that any aggrieved faculty member can go it for help with an academic freedom case, even as the latest bulletin from the NYS Conference of AAUP explicitly states that any faculty member can and should come for help. The Conference website even states that 2006 regulations "extend the protection of academic freedom to contingent faculty" - www.nysaaup.org/library/nysaaup_comm_a_af.htm.


2. stated that academic freedom has been lowered in AAUP priorities, even as AAUP has an entire Committee A for academic freedom cases (would the founders of AAUP and many, many others thereafter be pleased?).


3. claimed that I personally have "received extensive advice from our department of academic freedom, tenure, and governance".


The first two speak for themselves. The third borders on prevarication. The SUNY-Buffalo chapter resolution was sent to you on August 31, 2010, and also accompanied by an explicit request by the injured faculty member for an AAUP investigation. No response was ever received, verbally or in writing. (The only AAUP messages I have received on this case was a message of August 30 sent from your General Counsel Robert O'Neil saying "the General Counsel does not intervene in Committee A's consideration of individual case", and that only after a couple of informal emails in July from Greg Scholtz.)

Do you leave open the possibility of undertaking an investigation of this case if the UUP Delegate Assembly were to so request? (I hope that you actually answer this query of mine.) Informing us before our last Assembly on October 1 would have been helpful, given that the next Assembly is not until February when the severance vote is already scheduled.

I reaffirm that, at this time, AAUP remains in dereliction of its own stated obligations to faculty.

I am copying the NYS conference leadership.

Paul Zarembka


On 10/19/2010 11:50 PM, Gary Rhoades wrote:

Dear Professor Zarembka,

To my knowledge, you have in fact received a good deal of thoughtful advice from our department of academic freedom, tenure, and governance.
Of course, I realize that the advice may not have been the specific response you were looking for.
But that is different from being ignored.
And it certainly is a far cry from dereliction of duty.

Moreover, it is worth emphasizing that in a situation and context such as yours it is generally our custom to work through the bargaining unit, not just of the campus, but in your case of the system.
Being contacted by a chapter within the system (in this case your campus chapter) is quite a different matter than being contacted by the system leadership.
And from my perspective, the fact that we have not been contacted by the system leadership is telling.

Finally, I would simply point out that given the number of inquiries and cases we address from around the country, it might be worth considering the scale of the violations we are investigating and that are emerging nationally, and indeed within your state.
That is not to minimize the significance of what happens to individuals.
It is to say that it should be relatively easy to understand that we would prioritize a focus on reductions of significant numbers of faculty members, or on major structural actions (e.g., the eliminations of a faculty senate).

The key point, though, is that you have, in fact, been in contact with and received extensive advice from our department of academic freedom, tenure, and governance. It would be nice if you acknowledged that and the other contextual dimensions of the situation at hand in your communications.

I regret that you are apparently so unhappy with the AAUP.
But on the matters you are concerned about, it would seem to me that we, and
other faculty groups are not the enemy.
Indeed, the AAUP, like the AFT, the UUP, and a variety of other faculty organizations and unions, is working to enhance the working conditions of contingent faculty, and to afford them greater due process and employment security.

Yours,
Gary
Gary Rhoades, General Secretary, AAUP
http://www.aaup.org/aaup
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21119399464
http://www.twitter.com/AAUP

Adjunct academic freedom and AAUP

AAUP has a policy that any aggrieved faculty can go to it for help with an academic freedom case. Consideration is not to concern nationality (relevant here), nor membership in AAUP. The substantive issue is supposed to be the key.

Now, the case at SUNY at Buffalo:

1. The aggrieved from Poland asked for AAUP's help. His union chapter at SUNY at Buffalo unanimously passed a resolution asking AAUP to investigate the adjunct's case of violation of his academic freedom and his subsequent firing when he protested.

2. This case is, in my judgment, as good a case regarding academic freedom an organization defending faculty is likely ever get, given a) the substantive nature of the violation, and that b) the adjunct has four teaching awards under his belt including a Fulbright to the University of Washington.

3. AAUP has not even answered the adjunct nor his campus union chapter requests.

4. For AAUP to decide about the strength of a case, it must have investigated. It has not investigated this adjunct's case.

In short, AAUP is in complete dereliction of duty regarding its premier agenda item - academic freedom.

On October 16, I wrote this adjunct faculty member (I am his grievance officer):

AAUP policy is supposed to help any faculty member with an academic freedom issue, regardless of whether the faculty member is a member of AAUP and regardless of the nationality of the faculty member who has suffered an academic freedom injury. It is disgrace that AAUP has not given you the slightest attention. It belies the single most important agenda item that AAUP has claimed for itself, an organization nearly one hundred years old.

Further, I wrote him that

In February, UUP will vote on whether to severe its own connection with AAUP. In the past, I had supported the connection. But without a significant change in AAUP practice before then, I will argue and vote to severe the connection, a disaffiliation which would imply a serious loss of reputation and of dues to AAUP.

I copied the responsible person at AAUP, Secretary General Gary Rhoades. I also copied Phil Smith, President of UUP, responsible for killing a separate union grievance simply because the faculty member was on contingent appointment.

Communication to Director of OLMS, DoL, regarding ASC election challenge

[The following communication was sent last week. When a response is received, it will be posted on this blog.]

October 7, 2010

John Lund
Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
Department of Labor

Dear Mr. Lund,

In June 2010 I was a candidate for Chair of the Assembly of State Conferences (ASC) of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in an election supervised by your OLMS.

I challenged that election on July 5, 2010 (copy below) because it was demonstrably undemocratic and conducted with improper complicity between the AAUP and your D.C. district office. I am sorry to have to write this, but I find no alternative to doing so.

My challenge involved 23 items. On September 28, 2010, your Chief, Division of Enforcement, "dismissed" my complaint (see attached). She reduced 23 items into 12, mainly by simply skipping items. Within items she ignored or distorted essential elements. Certainly, it was not a careful adjudication.

I believe that such conduct would never be countenanced in a court of law and I ask you to review my challenge and a full rebuttal (yet to be written) to the decision of your Office of Enforcement -- a decision which may have been drafted by the D.C. district office itself, the office that I allege was complicit with AAUP.

Allow me to point to a few items:

1) My complaint was officially supported with evidence from another candidate for the same AAUP office, George Pieczenik, and yet he was never contacted by your Office of Enforcement. I have been informed that a third candidate also challenged the election.

2) In my allegation 20, I affirm that Dr. Pieczenik sent in $400 for four distributions of his candidate message ($100 for each distribution) and yet only one distribution of his message was sent. Dr. Pieczenik was never reimbursed by AAUP for the unused $300. Your Office of Enforcement affirms that one, but only one, message of his was distributed and, yet, takes no notice whatsoever as to the $300 owed Dr. Pieczenik. That is, the decision letter mentions these facts, but ignores the illegal retaining of moneys from Dr. Pieczenik -- AAUP retaining $300 for no service rendered and it is now three months afterwards.

3) Regarding the election process, it was highly skewed toward the candidacy of the person openly endorsed by the AAUP leadership in her campaign email which itself used the resources of the labor organization in an improper manner. This is entirely unrecognized by your Office of Enforcement.

4) I would offer you a detailed rebuttal to the letter from your Office of Enforcement. Let me mention here merely one evidenciary item. Item 18 reports a message from TrueBallot itself to me that the manner of email distributions of campaign statements by candidates George Pieczenik and myself compared to that for Donna Potts (the therein-stated preferred candidate of the AAUP leadership) ensured that 2500 to 3000 MORE persons received her AAUP-officer endorsement message than the campaign messages of either George Pieczenik or myself.

Remarkably, your Office of Enforcement simply ignores altogether this evidence of bias toward one candidate against two others. This is blatantly unequal treatment which could have affected the outcome of the election and must be included in any review. Furthermore, this endorsed candidate's message was sent on the same day from two distinct email accounts, providing extra assurance of receipt by all 34,000 eligible voters having email accounts (the number of eligible voters was reported by Ms. Nolan).

I ask that you permit me to provide to you a detailed reply to the premature 'dismissal' of my complaint by your Office of Enforcement. The purpose is your own review of the adequacy of the letter of September 28, 2010 from the Office of Enforcement as a response to my complaints. This would allow for an intramural settlement pursuant to remedying the procedural defects which have characterized the process so far.

Thank you for your consideration.

Paul Zarembka
Candidate for Chair, ASC, AAUP

Attached: Letter from Chief, Division of Enforcement, OLMS
cc: George Pieczenik

No response from AAUP

My message of August 31, 2010, to Gary Rhoades, Greg Scholtz, Irwin Yellowitz, and Robert O'Neil, AAUP, forwarding a contingent faculty member's request for an academic freedom defense has received no response.

The faculty member's request of AAUP has the unanimous support of the SUNY at Buffalo center chapter board of the United University Professions.