[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

CEDA officers

i am troubled when Professor Snyder, the 2nd vice president of CEDA, an 
elected and accountable officer,  proposes, advocates, and seeks proxy 
votes for a constitutional amendment.  that concern is escalated by what 
seems to me a clear conflict of interest between his role as an officer 
of CEDA and as head of the NDI.

my concern is twofold:

1) the role of officers

certainly i understand the "bully pulpit" as perhaps the only reason to 
give of oneself in service to the community, a community that one must 
care about in order to put in the time, energy, and effort required of 
an officer.  Professor Snyder certainly has the right and obligation to 
speak his mind, to propose change that he cares about deeply, and to use 
his office to advocate that change. he has, does, and no doubt will do 
much that is good and important for debate.  his ideas and his activism 
benefit us all.

this first concern is primarily the collection of proxy votes.  it seems 
to me that several decisions will be made soon which could affect the 
course of CEDA debate dramatically and for decades.  these decisions 
must be made after full and public discussion by the entire community as 
much as is possible.

the collection of proxies is problematic because it circumvents 
discussion and deliberation and argument.  rather than engaging the 
community as a whole in a discourse about proposed reform, this process 
isolates and excludes public discourse in favor of a private discussion. 
it is manifestly not an open discourse:  the door is closed and we know 
nothing about what's going inside.

perhaps the collection of proxies is a common occurrence and perhaps it 
is viewed as a "normal" way for CEDA officers to function.  if so, then 
i think it should stop.  perhaps it is a delusion, but i take pride in 
the openness of CEDA:  that includes the institutional discussion.

the CEDA business meeting is important:  it seems to me that folks 
should make every effort to attend.  perhaps there ought to be more time 
given to it.  that discussion will, no doubt, see many arguments and 
perspectives that have not been previously made in this forum or at the 
regional meetings.  a reasonable "vote" ought to be informed as much as 
possible by that discussion rather than made for unknown reasons, 
privately agreed upon.  certainly some will not be able to attend: 
proxies are appropriate, i think, but it seems to me a responsibility of 
those who give them to at least consider the arguments made before the 
business meeting.

2) conflict of interest

there is fairly clearly a conflict of interest here.  there is certainly 
the risk of the perception of a conflict of interest.  the NDI would 
benefit tremendously by an early topic release - the August 1st date is 
clearly chosen to benefit summer workshops which begin about then.

the second vice president is elected by us to serve the CEDA community 
as a whole.  it seems to me that being an officer requires one to put 
aside considerations of what is best for oneself, one's own students, 
and one's program in favor of what is best for the community.  our trust 
in officers is also important:  if we perceive the possibility that 
officers are acting in their own interests rather than the interests of 
the community, our faith in community-wide democratic openness is 
undermined.

perhaps it is merely a matter of "conflict-of-interest" statements like 
every faculty member is required to submit.  i think it is more a matter 
of officers being very careful about creating the appearance or 
actuality of a conflict of interest.

respectfully,
michael miroslav korcok
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page