√ *Spend (waste) NO MORE than 10 minutes doing this
√ *Spend (waste) NO MORE than 10 minutes crafting a reply to the vapid, slandering, chock-full-of-utter-bullshit replies left on the story about Stanislaus faculty OVERWHELMINGLY voting no-confidence in Pres. Shirvani, so my brain can rest and let the thing alone. (EDIT: DONE! 1k characters is not much. o.O My mini-essay is now 2 comments and so much leftover. Pasted what it *would* have looked like, below.)
__*Do my work inbox
__*Sort and start ONE load of laundry.
__*Write an absurd amount on my NaNo, in preparation for Thanksgiving hiatus - lets arbitrarily set a goal at 6k, so I don't go, "Oh, 2500, good enough" if I get there. Write as much as possible by the time Chris gets home!
__*Eat, snuggle, do maybe one more load o' wash
__*Choir (two weeks until concert, aaieeee!)
Text of original modbee response:
Case in point: honestfaculty/truefaculty/retiredfaculty is behaving in exactly the way Shirvani does when a legitimate, valid process does not go his way: attempt to subvert it illegitimately.
When the results are so solid, there is no avenue left but simple, outright lying about the process.
Shirvani and his have relied heavily on the concept that angry and concerned faculty are simply a vocal minority on the campus, going so far as to draw up what look a lot like hit lists (cross referencing people who are in both governance and union leadership and put themselves out to take the brunt of his disdain) and trying to subvert the legitimacy of faculty, but this vote clearly proves the rest of the faculty are not behind him. 90.9% of the 88% who voted voted no confidence, and that cannot, in any way, be spun in his favor. Even if every non-voter and non-valid balloter would have come out and voted 'confidence,' 'confidence' votes would have been outnumbered by 'no confidence' votes by four times. How's that for a number? In a country where only about half of eligible voters turn out even for major elections, this is a stunning show of democracy.
So when the question of faculty support can no longer be effectively questioned, now some find the need to lie.
So here is the process:
Votes were counted in full view of reporters. Ballots are NOT open; they are NOT identifiable in any way, and they are individually sealed inside of envelopes which are ALSO not identifiable in any way. The only mark a person has to give of their identity is on a second envelope, just to prove that they are the ones turning in an envelope with a ballot inside (equivalent to giving your name at a polling place and being marked off), and as soon as they are marked off, that envelope is discarded, leaving only unmarked envelopes with private ballots inside, and no way to tell who made which vote. (We can probably guess that some of the 23 "confidence" votes included Shirvani and some of the other academic administrators who were eligible to vote, but even that can't be confirmed.)
They even made the wise decision to not include ANY potentially biasing literature with the ballot, or any of the myriad reasons one might have voted "no confidence" on the president--for instance, the ways in which he tries daily to subvert campus governance (i.e. democracy), to dismantle any protections faculty have in place for the well being of the campus, its students, and programs (including Shirvani recently creating out of thin air a policy for "elimination of programs due to budget exigency," because the "program discontinuation" policy in place would have forced him to make sure students got graduated out of their programs before they were pulled out from under them).
We have honest faculty and an honest process; I'm ashamed to see so much blatant disdain from our community.