>>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:03:48 -0700

>>To: quillian

>>From: Charlotte Watson <charlott@csufresno.edu>

>>Subject: Followup to CETI meeting yesterday

>>

>>Ben,

>>

>>F.Y.I. in case you haven't seen this. If so, trash it. Was the attendance

>>what you expected?

>>

>>>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:34:09 -0700

>>>Reply-To: "CSU, Fresno Tech List" <TECHS@info.csufresno.edu>

>>>Sender: "CSU, Fresno Tech List" <TECHS@info.csufresno.edu>

>>>From: Spencer Blank <spencerb@csufresno.edu>

>>>Subject: Followup to CETI meeting yesterday

>>>X-To: techs@info.csufresno.edu

>>>X-cc: lesp@zimmer.csufresno.edu, rickt@zimmer.csufresno.edu,

>>> joesa@zimmer.csufresno.edu, johnwa@zimmer.csufresno.edu

>>>To: Multiple recipients of list TECHS <TECHS@info.csufresno.edu>

>>>

>>>A transcript as well as audio tapes were made of the meeting. Dr. Quillian

>>>is making plans, I believe, to make these available to the campus community.

>>>I appreciate the effort and expense this campus has gone to in keeping us

>>>informed at this stage of the game. I've talked to techs at SLO, who are

>>>actively discouraged from asking difficult questions and heard that SLO and

>>>Stanislaus only had copies of the proposal put in the reserve book room;

>>>rather than having them distributed, as we did.

>>>

>>>I won't go into all the questions, (I don't even remember them, now) but

>>>I'll make a few observations: At this meeting, administrative/mainframe

>>>computing was expressly excluded from the purview of CETI (as were undefined

>>>"special" labs. Good news for the SIMSr folks. 128 million of the CSU IS

>>>budget is going to be handed over to CETI. There were many vocal complaints

>>>that some of that 128 million funded "special" labs or other activities that

>>>were supposed to be excluded from the CETI purview, and that the funds would

>>>be pulled for CETI. That lead to much waffling about revisiting the

>>>numbers. ***This issue needs to be pressed because many of the budget

>>>figures originally given to CETI were done hastily and I don't sense that

>>>they have much vested interest in cutting that figure.***

>>>

>>>The "contract" status of CSU tech employees was finally explained after

>>>dodging the initial question. This answer, as were many, was given in

>>>contradiction to what was written in the plan in our possession. The CETI

>>>team said that the situation is "fluid" and that these issues are still

>>>under negotiation. In any case, Tom West stated that CETI will establish

>>>standards and "jobs" that will be parceled out to the campus. The campus

>>>techs and their management will decide how to accomplish the job within the

>>>specs provided by CETI. The employee remains fully within the CSU umbrella

>>>in terms of pay, PERS, and management. Tom admitted that this arrangement

>>>was not the first choice of the corporate partners.

>>>

>>>Those of you who attended the meeting, and especially those who asked

>>>questions; THANK YOU. You did a great job.

>>>

>>>The satellite student union was relatively empty. Most notably absent were

>>>faculty. All though a few outspoken faculty reps were there, like Les,

>>>Otto, who spoke for education, and one engineering faculty, there were

>>>fewer than 10 other faculty in attendance.

>>>

>>>In spite of the assurances that this is an ongoing, fluid process, I contend

>>>that CETI has institutional inertia. It's easier to influence its course

>>>now, in the planning stages, rather than when it is an established behemoth.

>>>

>>>The budget committee demand to have a 6 month moratorium so that adequate

>>>consultation can occur has been ignored. Given that fact and the strong

>>>language of that statement, I was shocked by the absence of the faculty.

>>>When the CETI panel was asked to explain the short timeline we heard two

>>>very different answers... Industry partners said that it was for the

>>>purposes of securing capital funding and protecting the careers of the

>>>corporate presidents who put their business on the line, and Tom West, the

>>>CSU author of CETI said that the corporate partners were marching to the

>>>beat of CSU's drum, that we put a short timeline on them. Which story do we

>>>believe, if either?

>>>

>>>I received the email below from Lucy Williams, who is at the chancellor's

>>>office on the CSU side of CETI. He is responding to Les Pincu, who was a

>>>very outspoken faculty at yesterday's meeting. Les was tried very earnestly

>>>(didn't we all?!) to get some concrete answers from the CETI group and was

>>>given very evasive answers. I thought you tech folks would like to hear the

>>>response.

>>>

>>>>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:36:48 -0700

>>>>From: Lucy Williams <dicklucy@gte.net>

>>>>Reply-To: dicklucy@gte.net

>>>>To: Bill Jones <wbj@dhvx20.csudh.edu>, Wang-chan Wong wwong@dhvx20.csudh.edu . . . Les Pincu <lesp@csufresno.edu>

>>>>Subject: Re: I'm worried!

>>>>

>>>>Les-

>>>>

>>>>If you are saying that these answers are nonresponsive, I agree (unless

>>>>they are only part of the answers given).

>>>>

>>>>Maybe I could give you more detail, if I knew the questions. Sometimes

>>>>the answer may depend upon ongoing negotiations. Remeber that CFA does

>>>>not give the faculty all the details of contract negatiations during the

>>>>negotiations. (As I understand it, that is because such revelations

>>>>might weaken the negotiating position.)

>>>>

>>>>Although the details of the organization and governance structure for

>>>>CETI are not yet agreed upon, it seems to me that you should know of

>>>>some of the possible structures as well as ones which we (as

>>>>individuals) would support. I would like to know what the faculty would

>>>>support. For example: How many members shoud there be on the board of

>>>>directors? How should the board of directors interface with the Board of

>>>>Trustees of the CSU? Should there be a faculty director? (I think yes.)

>>>>If so, how should the faculty representative(s) be selected? (I think by

>>>>the CSU Academic Senate or election. It might depend upon the number of

>>>>directors. If there are several faculty directors, they might be

>>>>selected by different methods. What do you think?) What about other

>>>>representative members (students, campuses, CE, etc)? At what level of

>>>>detail should the board be engaged? How often should the board meet?

>>>>Should board members be compensated? Should there be separate advisory

>>>>groups for each operational units (i.e. utilities services, commodities

>>>>and educational/training brokerage) or a single advisory group? Are all

>>>>activities of the operational units to be reviewed by the directors?

>>>>What authority should the advisory groups have? Should the CEO be an

>>>>officer of the CSU? CSU but on temporary loan to CETI? Are there

>>>>forbidden activities for CETI? Are there activities which require

>>>>faculty approval? I think the answer here must be yes. Otherwise I

>>>>cannot see how the faculty can retain control of curriculum, pedagogy

>>>>and intellectual property rights for class materials (as they must).

>>>>

>>>>Some questions do not require such urgent answers but should be

>>>>addresses soon because they will effect our decisions about the CETI

>>>>organization. Examples are: What are the exit conditions for CETI? Can

>>>>other groups join CETI? If so, how? (I hope so.) What protections are

>>>>there for current revenues producing activities at the campus level?

>>>>

>>>>Some questions cannot and should not be answered until we have the

>>>>organization in place. For example: Should there be a standard desk top

>>>>for administrative offices in 2004? If so, what should it be? What brand

>>>>of wire should we use in 2003? Should we go wireless in 2005? What word

>>>>processing software should be standard in 2006? Should there be a

>>>>standard presentation software in 2007? These are decisions which should

>>>>be made when we know the technology of the year when the activity takes

>>>>place. If we can get the organization right, maybe we can make the right

>>>>decision then.

>>>>

>>>>Please remember that we are discussing neither a procurement nor a

>>>>service contract. We are discussing a partnership, a long term

>>>>commitment to work together towards common goals. We must specify those

>>>>goals carefully. That is not only urgent but mandatory if the

>>>>partnership is to be of any help in closing resource gaps.

>>>>

>>>>Can you help me?

>>>>Dick

>>>>

>>>>Les Pincu wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> At today's meeting on the Fresno campus with the CETI representatives, in

>>>>> response to questions by faculty and staff, which attempted to pin down some

>>>>> of the specifics in the proposal, the following are some of the DIRECT

>>>>> quotes made by the CETI group:

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> THE SPECIFICS OF THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SETTLED.

>>>>>

>>>>> THERE'S NOTHING IN WRITING AT THIS POINT.

>>>>>

>>>>These would seem to be generic and true for almost everything. There is

>>>>no contract and the business plan is only suggested potential activities.

>>>>The suggested (and other) potentials might be cited.

>>>>

>>>>> WE CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ANSWER TODAY. WE NEED TO GET UNDER THE COVERS OF THIS.

>>>>Hmmm.. This sounds interesting! But, she may be putting you off, Les.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> WE'VE GIVEN A LITTLE THOUGHT TO THIS AND WE WANT TO DISCUSS THIS WITH

>>>>> YOU AT GREATER LENGTH.

>>>>>

>>>>Did they give you any of those thoughts? Did you discuss further? If

>>>>not, and if the answer is urgent, your question about "when" seems apt.

>>>>

>>>>> NONE OF THIS IS IN CONCRETE. WE HAVE TO GO BACK UNDER THE ANALYSIS

>>>>> AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN.

>>>>>

>>>>If someone gave me this answer, I would want to provide information for

>>>>the new analysis.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> So I ask again, formally....When are we going to see (and consult on)

the

>>>>> SPECIFICS of the contractual agreement in a way that will allow for meaning

>>>>> interaction and substantive revision BEFORE it is signed? The details on

>>>>> this implementation agreement are even more important than the proposal

>>>>> itself, and the devil is in the details. The VERY short time-frame between

>>>>> now and the date set for contract agreement has me deeply worried.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>Charlotte Watson