Response from Chancellor Moeser to our April 28 letter

—–Original Message—–
From: James Moeser []
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:04 PM
To: Hornstein, Donald T.; Derek W Lochbaum
Cc: Jablonski, Margaret A.; Crisp, Winston B.; Ort, Shirley A.; Dick Baddour; Mann, Richard L.; Raynor, Jessica J.; Templeton, Joseph L.
Subject: Friday Meeting

Don and Derek::

Thank you for setting up the meeting of LLCAC on Friday. I look forward
to meeting with you.

I believe that this meeting has been mischaracterized. I note that SAW
has described this as an “emergency meeting” and they also report that I
have reversed my decision of August, 2007, not to adopt the DSP. That
is not correct.

As I stated in my April 23 memo, the purpose of this meeting is
twofold: First to hear to an orderly discussion of the complex issues
of applying UNC’s labor code to actual practice, to include but not be
limited to, a discussion of the DSP from those who advocate it as well
as those who oppose it. Unfortunately, most of the presentations I have
seen on this subject have been in the form of non-negotiable demands,
which is not an avenue for any kind of discussion. I would hope that
this would not be the tenor of a LLCAC discussion.

The more important purpose of this meeting, to my mind, is the second.
I seek the committee’s advice on the charge that I should give to next
year’s committee.

Again, I look forward to meeting with the committee and hearing your
discussion of these issues.

James Moeser, Chancellor
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
103 South Building
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-9100
Office (919) 962-1365
Fax (919) 962-1647

Our response:

—– Forwarded message from —–
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:02:14 -0400
Subject: Re:[saw] [llcac] FW: Friday Meeting

Committee Members,

Hope you are all well! I wish that Chancellor Moeser had responded to
me the five times he’s passed us by today. We could have clarified, as
it seems our written statement has been misunderstood.

To address our mischaracterization of the meeting: perhaps we were
unclear in our language. If so, we apologize. It remains a significant
point that the Chancellor has indeed reversed his August 2007 decision
not to even consider adopting the DSP, which he restated to SAW both in
written form in November 2007 and in December 2007 at which point he
stated he took his licensing labor code directives from this committee.
When I requested discussion of these issues in the committee, as I have
cited in our statement earlier today, Derek stated that he confirmed,
presumably from the Chancellor, that the DSP was not up for discussion
in this committee.

We did not mean to imply that the Chancellor has stated that he is
going to adopt the DSP, though certainly that is why I have spent the
past 12 days sleeping in the lobby in South Building.

I do believe it’s appropriate to describe this meeting, convened very
quickly after the last meeting of the LLCAC, as an emergency meeting,
but that is a matter of semantics and is not overly important. I also
think it is fairly clear this meeting would not have been called had it
not been for our civil disobedience tactics.

Unfortunately (and ironically), we have been consistently given
non-negotiable demands by this administration rather than open dialogue
on the issues, which is why we have been occupying this space outside
the Chancellor’s office for the past twelve days. It is because of a
consistent failure on the part of the administration to honestly engage
in discussion on the DSP that we have resorted to these tactics of
demands and civil disobedience. It was our last choice, and a forced
choice, as we were left with no options when consistently denied
meetings and accountable discussions of substantive policies and facts.

Salma and the other members of the (peaceful) occupation

Salma Mirza
UNC-CH History, Class of 2008
Organizer for Student Action with Workers
224 FPG Carolina Union, C.B. #5210

%d bloggers like this: