December 14, 2023 “meeting” of the Brooklyn College Local Chapter of the PSC and its zoom poll outcomes.

The December 14, 2023 “meeting” of the BC Local Chapter of the PSC was unable to legitimately conduct Union Business and the zoom poll outcomes publicized by the local chapter are meaningless and misrepresented. 

 

This endeavor represents mission creep and overreach by the local PSC chapter whose purpose per PSC Constitution Article IX Section 2 is:  the representation and implementation of PSC policies on the local campus and “develop[ing] positions on union activities and adopt[ing] policies related to local issues” (directly connected to the PSC contract, policies and positions.)  No PSC chapter is part of campus or CUNY governance (for obvious reasons) and the PSC clearly recognizes the level of involvement its local chapters can realistically expect which is why they have specified the quorum for local chapters at merely 10% of their membership. (Article IX, Section 8.)  This meeting, the composition of its attendance and the activities engaged in during it were plagued by significant procedural errors in violation of the PSC Constitution and Robert’s Rules of Order, which render its outcome unlawful, unrepresentative and meaningless.

 

1. The ostensible reason for the meeting per email from the BC local chapter chair was to “discuss the administration’s response to these letters*** and decide next steps which may include a vote of no confidence.” However, as became clear from the beginning, this meeting was planned and choreographed by local chapter leaders and nonmember attendees to ensure it would end in zoom polls expressing no confidence in the BC president. 

2. Present in large numbers at the meeting were many HEOs, CLTs, and classified staff.Per the PSC Constitution (Article IX, Section 1):professional staff belong to separate cross-campus PSC chapters, not the local campus chapters of the PSC which are faculty-only. (Even staff who teach as adjuncts cannot belong to the local PSC chapter – they remain in the cross-campus chapter of their full-time position (A IX, S1(d) ii.) While these coworkers may attend meetings of the local faculty chapters and often do, they have neither voice nor vote in the meetings of chapters to which they do not belong.(Neither, it should be noted, do faculty have voice or vote in the cross-campus professional staff chapters.)

3. It has not been reliably determined nor demonstrated that the meeting met quorum of voting membership.The PSC Constitution requires just 10% of its membership for quorum (AIX, S8.)The Chapter Chair declared that quorum was 101 members and announced that the meeting had met quorum. According to Human Resources there were 1457 faculty at the College in Fall of 2023. This means that quorum could require up to a minimum of 146 faculty.Since the number and identity of members in attendance was not made available either during or after the meeting, nor is the total number of local chapter members for Fall 2023 publicly available, it remains impossible to determine that quorum was actually present.

4. The PSC Constitution requires that chapter meetings follow Robert’s Rules of Order.This meeting did not.The flow of the meeting was choreographed by local chapter leadership to ensure the predetermined outcome. The agenda was not made available prior to the meeting.Minutes from prior meetings were not distributed nor made available to be voted upon for acceptance. The time allowed for those present to speak was changed midstream by local chapter chair declaration (not motion or vote) and after a majority of the meeting had been taken up with comments advocating the predetermined desired outcome.A large number of members wishing to speak were not allowed the floor, including faculty in leadership positions that are part of governance (Chair of Chairs, CAP Liaisons.)Motions were neither made, seconded, discussed, nor voted upon to close discussion on any of the topics, move to zoom polling, change zoom poll language, re-deploy zoom polls, nor to close the meeting and adjourn.

5. Nonmember HEOs, CLTs, and classified staff spoke throughout the meeting and no attempt was made to distinguish between voting members of the local chapter and nonmembers. Just the opposite: several nonmembers were given the floor to speak, at least one delivered prepared remarks, and nonmembers were very active in the chat.During the substantial confusion and disagreements over the polling process and the polls themselves, some nonmembers tried to silence members of the local chapter through responses in the chat or by unmuting themselves and speaking out against members with whom they disagreed.(We again note that faculty would not, nor should they be allowed to speak or vote at the chapter meetings of the HEOs, CLTs, and classified staff – this is the policy of our PSC Union per its Constitution.)

6. The polls and the polling process itself were muddled, chaotic, completely unreliable and unable to produce legitimate results.

   • Staff were allowed to participate in the zoom polls in the meeting, in violation of an explicit provision in the PSC Constitution prohibiting staff from voting in local chapter meetings.(Staff are not enfranchised to vote in local campus chapter meetings (neither are faculty are enfranchised to vote in the cross-campus staff chapter meetings.)) The very creation and deployment of polls “for staff only” at a local chapter meeting of the PSC is a violation of the PSC Constitution.

   • While there were polls labeled for “faculty” and “staff,” (itself a violation of PSC Constitution per the above); every participant had the ability to vote in either and/or both of the polls. There was not then, nor is there subsequently, a way to know who voted in which poll.

   • What is known is that in more than a few cases, faculty and staff voted in the wrong poll.This was reported publicly in real time as a review of the chat (which has not been released by meeting organizers (chapter leadership), but which is memorialized in portions of the chat saved by others in attendance) reveals.

   • The wording of many of the zoom polls was plagued by double negatives and inconsistent voting options (“yes” meaning one position in one poll, meaning the opposite in the next one, “don’t know” rather than “abstain” appearing as a choice in one poll.)This resulted in substantial confusion among members and attendees who reported in the chat that they voted the opposite way than they meant to due to the phrasing of the question.

   • Some members and attendees reported not being able to see the polls nor to participate in them.

   • Poll results were expressed in percentages rather than raw numbers during the meeting, but publicized as numbers.Thus, the actual outcomes of these poll results even to those present at the meeting, remains obscured and impossible to legitimately ascertain (which, of course, plagued this endeavor from the start.)

   • On the spur of the moment it was decided to take several polls of “all persons in the meeting” despite the earlier emphasis on the need to separate out members from non-member attendees in the polls.(An emphasis that, it should be noted, is very strongly made in the emails announcing the meeting and encouraging attendance.) It was these results that were publicly in local chapter communications starting on December 18 despite the clear violations.

 

The December meeting and its outcomes should be given no credence whatsoever; its process was illegal by the PSC Constitution and its outcome was marred by significant errors.

​

***“These letters” refers to letters written by a small number of academic departments as well as a “synthesis letter” the union leadership devised from the existing letters.  These were tendered to President Anderson on November 21st with a request that she respond in writing by December 10th which she did.  It should be noted that these letters were tendered by less than 1/3 of Brooklyn College Academic Departments and the campaign, which had begun in Spring 2023 by a small group of union members was also plagued by disorganization, lack of clarity regarding their purpose and content, and lack of trust in how local chapter leadership would use or represent “the letters.”  Additionally, it must be emphasized that none of these letters mentioned any violations of the collective bargaining agreements by Brooklyn College administration nor, in fact, did they have any direct connection to any of the representative or advocacy duties that are the goal and purpose of the local PSC chapters.