RPI
*JUST MY VIEW* YMMV. No warranties expressed or implied.
10/8/2018
For my RPI alum friends, here is my summary of the Renew Rensselaer/RAA/'Tute meeting that I just attended. Just my own take - check out the raging inferno if you are so inclined.
I went to the RAA alum meeting at RPI. Renew Rensselaer had their ducks in a row. A good, fact-based presentation with sources for their numbers. No direct attack on Shirley or existing policy - they focused on improvements. RAA did a good job moderating the meeting.
The 'Tute team pretty much sucked. They never even read the Renew Rensselaer web page - showed up for class without their homework. There was about 80 alum there, a bunch of them Patroons ($2K+/yr) and they weren't happy. I talked with two that aren't giving any money until Shirley is gone. The Student Union with its deliberate misinformation from the admin was highest on the PMO (piss me off) list by the alums. The faculty email accusing the alums of racism, sexism, and heightism was a close second. The 'dripping condescension' (great phrase - sounds wetter than it is) was a bit overwhelming.
Apparently, they didn't expect their alum to be that fact-oriented. WTF? The Q&A got a bit hostile. They earned it. The admin generic 'everything is rosy' was punctuated by saying it would be rosier if we started giving more money. That was their real solution.
Here is the link to the whole 3 joyous hours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqhd4xFI0-M
RAA seems like they might agree with RR, but are not willing to offend the admin, so they are playing the part of arbiter. That allows them to give RR the alum access and exposure while being 'uninvolved' in the process. At least they aren't taking a firm stand for the admin.
You have to remember Shirley's personal style. She is a strong Type A personality. She is the General, giving commands and expects them to be followed without question. She has also been told 1000s of times how brilliant she is and believes it. Why listen to other lesser beings? It almost seems like she surrounds herself with less competent people to reinforce this. Then she sends them into battle unprepared against people who understand research, know how to present, and know how to prepare. Surprise, they get chewed up and spit out.
3/23/19 The Further Trials and Tribulations of Being an RPI Alum
This was my take on the meeting. I will probably be cross-posting it to our other alum groups.
So, in December, the RPI Alumni Association held elections for new positions on the board. Apparently, they modeled the voting after 3rd world dictatorships. The alums put together a petition to discuss the elections, signed by enough people to force a meeting. It was held today. The president, Kareem Muhammad, officiated the meeting. The RAA limited the meeting to 1 hour with 15 minutes of off-topic time at the end. They took the 6 points of the petition and allocated them each about 7 minutes of time. Of the 28 or so board members, 7 were in attendance, with *maybe* one or two more via video.
The gist of the topics related to the RAA not representing the member's interests; not following the rules outlined for elections; contesting the election itself; invalidating all Trustees currently in office; filling vacancies temporarily; and scheduling new elections. The actions of the board, particularly in meetings, are governed by (in order): NYS non-profit law, The bylaws of the RAA, and Robert's Rules of Order.
The complaints about the election that I heard were:
1 - It did not have enough attendance to be a quorum.
2 - Call in/write in ballots may not be admissible according to state law
3 - The call in/write in ballots had some irregularities. Some were disregarded by the RAA board. They couldn't explain the criteria for ignoring some and not others.
4 - There were more people nominated that what was on the ballot. Apparently, the existing board vetted the nominations and reduced it to one person per position, with the vote being to accept or reject the entire slate. No one could explain the vetting process.
5 - The vote passed - I think it was 27-26 with the deciding vote being cast by the President. Apparently (documented in an email), he cast the vote after the meeting, which is not allowed.
At this meeting, Kareem insisted that the only power the attendees had was advisory. Apparently, this was not so according to the Bylaws and Robert's Rules, although he stuck to this. A number of points of order were brought up, seconded, rejected, called for a vote. Essentially every alum in the room, other than the attending board members were adamant about the validity of these votes but the RAA would not take a count for a final validation. It was hotly contested with alums pointing out specific Bylaw, Robert's, and legal issues with the election and this proceeding.
To make it clear that the RAA board was 'not on board'. They insisted the meeting could only go until 1PM (1 hour) because the room was reserved at 1:30 for another meeting and an alternate venue could not be found. What do you know, the bigger banquet room upstairs was empty, I waited until almost 1:30 and no one else showed up - they locked the doors. A group announced at the meeting that there would be a continuation at the Hilton Garden because RPI couldn't find any place for them to meet on campus on a Saturday (formal requests were made). Way to treat alums. It is not like RPI doesn't have lecture halls to seat 100 people.
To be clear, I missed a golden entrepreneurial opportunity. I could have sold pitchforks, torches, and bad fruit at the door. It was quite testy but basically polite. It was acknowledged that board members were a volunteer position and that if they would represent the alums, it would all be OK. There was a bit of fuzziness as to whether the RAA represented only the alums or the alums and the school, although it was clear that they were only supporting the school at this point.
My best guess is that the alums (possibly represented by Renew Rensselaer) will end up suing the RAA to force more supervised and legitimate elections. I think all this will play into the support of Shirley Jackson, since it will take some time to resolve before it ever reaches her desk.
4/10/2019 The Dark Side Now Clearly Controls the Union Budget
poly.rpi.edu/2019/04/05/administrators-reject-request-changes-to-union-budget/?fbclid=IwAR0vKjR9PXEgezx1v_3kOmLPaKsWrGuGagU7YGndm0HbVGsiEcko3ntqUuA
From the Poly:
Administrators reject, request changes to Union budgetPosted on April 5, 2019 in News by Brookelyn Parslow, Senior Reporter
Madeline Wilson/The Polytechnic
CLASS OF 2021 SENATOR ADVAITH NARAYAN EXPLAINS why he objects to the consideration of the motion to approve the revised Union Annual Report.For the first time in at least 49 years, the Institute rejected the student-proposed Union budget and did not submit it to the president and Board of Trustees and for approval. The Executive Board was indirectly instructed to make two changes to the budget before it could be submitted: increase the enrollment estimate—and, as a result, the Union’s projected income—and restore around $57,000 of funding to a program that the Board had decided to cut.
While budgeting in December, the Executive Board decided to phase out $57,584 in funding to student staffing in athletic facilities like the Armory and the East Campus Athletic Village for Fiscal Year 2020. The Board felt that this athletic student staffing was leftover from when athletics budgeting was under the Union’s jurisdiction, and therefore wasn’t appropriate to include in the Union activity fee anymore, said former President of the Union Justin Etzine in a presentation to the Senate. The funding for a portion of ICA Athletics was included in the Union’s budget up until 2016, when it was announced that it would be moved to the overall Student Life budget.
Etzine explained his belief that this cut in funding coincided with a “breakdown of communication” between the Institute and the Union. The Institute did not provide enrollment estimates when members of the Union reached out for them. The Board and the Union Admin Office use these projections to start the budgeting process; they calculate the approximate income from the activity fee and use this number as a baseline “to ensure fee changes reflect needed budget changes.” Members of the Union came up with their own estimates by talking to other departments on campus.
When the budget was submitted, members of the Union were told by administrators that the enrollment estimate for undergraduate students in Fiscal Year 2020 was actually 6,700—as opposed to the 6,500 figure that was used. This would increase the Union’s income from student payment of the activity fee by approximately $81,000.
“When originally notified of this in February, we shared with Student Life that—if we receive the additional Activity Fee-paying members of the Union—we could make use of the additional funds to support our facilities and other needs throughout the Union,” wrote Etzine in a presentation to the Senate. “This is how we would handle any additional income in current or previous years.”
Etzine explained that these enrollment projections are often different from the Institute’s and there had never been an issue with this in the past. Since these numbers determine how much income the Union will receive from the activity fee, the Board has historically decided that it’s safer to be conservative. Overestimating this income could result in club budgets being cut after they’ve been approved and released to students, which Etzine feels would cause students to “lose faith in the budgeting process.”
After not hearing back about the status of the budget, members of the Union reached out. Etzine was told by members of the Union Admin Office that the budget had not been submitted to the president and Board of Trustees because it must be updated. Administrators, either in the Division of Finance or the Division of Student Life, required an increase in the enrollment estimate and the restoration of funding to the athletics staffing that the Board had decided to cut.
In the past, the student-approved Union budget has been sent to the Institute’s Division of Finance and Division of Student Life, added to the rest of the school’s budget, and sent to the president of the Institute and Board of Trustees for approval. This is the first time that the Institute has indirectly instructed students on the Executive Board to change the Union budget. There was no direct communication with Etzine throughout this process besides being cc’d on one email.
The E-Board is the budgeting body of the Union and as outlined in the Union Constitution, “It shall investigate, prepare, and approve the budget for the following fiscal year” and “administer the Union budget, appropriate Union funds and manage the business affairs of any and all facilities operated by the Rensselaer Union.” These items have been included in the Union Constitution for at least 32 years.
After being told to change the budget, students on the Board felt like they didn’t have any other options and decided to comply. Days later, Etzine presented the updated budget—in the form of the Union Annual Report—to the Senate for approval per normal operating procedures. He explained the full situation surrounding the changes.
“To me at least, looking at this, I feel like this singular action above all else has shown that a student-run Union is something that is in the past,” said David Raab ’19 during this Senate meeting. Raab was the Policies Committee chairperson of the E-Board when this situation occurred.
After the motion to approve the revised Union Annual Report was read, Class of 2021 Senator Advaith Narayan objected to the consideration of the question. “This doesn’t seem like a change that was brought forth by students … it seems to me like the E-Board was strong-armed into passing the budget. I don’t think this is something that the Senate should even be thinking about just because the whole reason it’s happening now just seems wrong,” said Narayan. The objection passed 12-5-6, so the motion was not technically heard, and there was no discussion on its merits.
Since the UAR is a separate document and the changes didn’t affect the activity fee per student, the changed budget stands. The UAR will not accurately reflect how the money is budgeted unless the revised UAR is passed or the budget is changed again.
Etzine suggested that a change in staffing might be the cause of the communication issues with the enrollment estimates at the beginning of budgeting. He does not believe that the decisions to not provide enrollment estimates and to direct the Board to change the funding to athletics staffing are linked, but still finds both decisions concerning. This is the first Union budgeting season done with Hough after former Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer Virginia Gregg’s retirement in June 2018.
It was unclear to the Board if this directive was issued by administrators in the Division of Student Life or the Division of Finance. When The Polytechnic reached out to Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer Barbara J. Hough and Vice President for Student Life Peter Konwerski about how and why these decisions were made, Director of Media Relations and Communications Reeve Hamilton responded with the following statement:
During the Institute’s review of the initial budget that the Union presented to the Vice President of Student Life in early February, some miscalculations were identified, including the actual and projected number of enrolled students at Rensselaer.
Accordingly, Vice President Konwerski asked Director Potts to work with the Union student leadership to resubmit their budget incorporating the updated calculations.
The Union E-Board revised and unanimously approved the Budget on March 14 and it was accepted by Rensselaer leadership on March 27.
Vice President Konwerski and Vice President Hough look forward to further strengthening collaboration and communication with Union student leaders on an ongoing basis.
The statement did not address the directives to restore funding to athletic student staffing. The Polytechnic is awaiting comment on this topic.
In an email to The Polytechnic, recently-elected Grand Marshal Meagan Lettko wrote that she felt the Senate objected to consider the UAR because the “situation was rushed” and they needed more time to discuss internally. “We are working to resolve the UAR by providing an appendix that will detail the situation while continuing to honor the work that the UAR Committee put forth to create the document. Moving forward, I hope to be a part of conversations that allow for situations such as this to be avoided through communication and accountability,” wrote Lettko. Newly elected President of the Union Caitlin Kennedy said that the budgeting issues were, in her opinion, a result of “a mix of lingering communication issues with new people.” She plans to bring the UAR back to the Senate once it has been updated with the necessary changes and information. “I will work to create new, open lines of communication to avoid situations like these in the years to come. Our budgeting process is extremely unique and I hope to bring more awareness about our process and the rationale behind it,” wrote Kennedy.
4/11/2019 The RAA Return Volley is Fired
A friend of mine posted that the RAA email list has been purged of anyone who has been identified as expressing displeasure with how the RAA leadership has acted. I don't know this to be true, but it sounds very possible.
Here is a link. I am also attaching the latest email in case the link gets removed.
alumni.rpi.edu/controls/email_marketing/view_in_browser.aspx?sid=1225&gid=1&sendId=271818&fbclid=IwAR3xu9ZtXoLutoSVMyHun49YDp67BnmKAue_Fz-di5tdgsnrF1cmpiDi3C4
April 11, 2019
To: Rensselaer Alumni and Alumnae
From: Graig R. Eastin, Vice President, Institute Advancement and Interim Executive Director, Rensselaer Alumni Association and Kareem I. Muhammad ’01, President, Rensselaer Alumni Association
Re: Rensselaer Alumni Association
Some Rensselaer alumni/ae have received, or seen through social media posts, a communication from a group of individuals, led by Mr. Bill Criss, claiming to have been elected as the “interim” board of the Rensselaer Alumni Association (“RAA”). We are writing to inform you that these communications are blatantly false and should be disregarded. This group of individuals was never legitimately elected to positions with the RAA. The Bylaws of the RAA prescribe the process whereby the slate of proposed Trustees are approved, and New York law provides a means and timeline for members to challenge an election. Those responsible for the false communication have failed to meet the requirements of these laws and procedures, and have no authority whatsoever to speak or act on behalf of the RAA.
Accordingly, the RAA continues to operate as it has, with President Kareem Muhammad ’01, and the other Board members managing the organization in coordination with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to support continued, quality engagement opportunities for all Rensselaer alumni/ae.
The group falsely purporting to have established an “interim” RAA Board is a group, self-styled “Renew Rensselaer,” that has been opposed to many of the initiatives of the Institute for some time. Prior tactics engaged in by the group have included attempting to dissuade student applicants from enrolling at Rensselaer, and urging alumni/ae not to support Rensselaer. Fortunately, this group does not represent the vast majority of Rensselaer alumni/ae, who are well-represented by the legitimate RAA Board, and who support Rensselaer enthusiastically.
10/8/2018
For my RPI alum friends, here is my summary of the Renew Rensselaer/RAA/'Tute meeting that I just attended. Just my own take - check out the raging inferno if you are so inclined.
I went to the RAA alum meeting at RPI. Renew Rensselaer had their ducks in a row. A good, fact-based presentation with sources for their numbers. No direct attack on Shirley or existing policy - they focused on improvements. RAA did a good job moderating the meeting.
The 'Tute team pretty much sucked. They never even read the Renew Rensselaer web page - showed up for class without their homework. There was about 80 alum there, a bunch of them Patroons ($2K+/yr) and they weren't happy. I talked with two that aren't giving any money until Shirley is gone. The Student Union with its deliberate misinformation from the admin was highest on the PMO (piss me off) list by the alums. The faculty email accusing the alums of racism, sexism, and heightism was a close second. The 'dripping condescension' (great phrase - sounds wetter than it is) was a bit overwhelming.
Apparently, they didn't expect their alum to be that fact-oriented. WTF? The Q&A got a bit hostile. They earned it. The admin generic 'everything is rosy' was punctuated by saying it would be rosier if we started giving more money. That was their real solution.
Here is the link to the whole 3 joyous hours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqhd4xFI0-M
RAA seems like they might agree with RR, but are not willing to offend the admin, so they are playing the part of arbiter. That allows them to give RR the alum access and exposure while being 'uninvolved' in the process. At least they aren't taking a firm stand for the admin.
You have to remember Shirley's personal style. She is a strong Type A personality. She is the General, giving commands and expects them to be followed without question. She has also been told 1000s of times how brilliant she is and believes it. Why listen to other lesser beings? It almost seems like she surrounds herself with less competent people to reinforce this. Then she sends them into battle unprepared against people who understand research, know how to present, and know how to prepare. Surprise, they get chewed up and spit out.
3/23/19 The Further Trials and Tribulations of Being an RPI Alum
This was my take on the meeting. I will probably be cross-posting it to our other alum groups.
So, in December, the RPI Alumni Association held elections for new positions on the board. Apparently, they modeled the voting after 3rd world dictatorships. The alums put together a petition to discuss the elections, signed by enough people to force a meeting. It was held today. The president, Kareem Muhammad, officiated the meeting. The RAA limited the meeting to 1 hour with 15 minutes of off-topic time at the end. They took the 6 points of the petition and allocated them each about 7 minutes of time. Of the 28 or so board members, 7 were in attendance, with *maybe* one or two more via video.
The gist of the topics related to the RAA not representing the member's interests; not following the rules outlined for elections; contesting the election itself; invalidating all Trustees currently in office; filling vacancies temporarily; and scheduling new elections. The actions of the board, particularly in meetings, are governed by (in order): NYS non-profit law, The bylaws of the RAA, and Robert's Rules of Order.
The complaints about the election that I heard were:
1 - It did not have enough attendance to be a quorum.
2 - Call in/write in ballots may not be admissible according to state law
3 - The call in/write in ballots had some irregularities. Some were disregarded by the RAA board. They couldn't explain the criteria for ignoring some and not others.
4 - There were more people nominated that what was on the ballot. Apparently, the existing board vetted the nominations and reduced it to one person per position, with the vote being to accept or reject the entire slate. No one could explain the vetting process.
5 - The vote passed - I think it was 27-26 with the deciding vote being cast by the President. Apparently (documented in an email), he cast the vote after the meeting, which is not allowed.
At this meeting, Kareem insisted that the only power the attendees had was advisory. Apparently, this was not so according to the Bylaws and Robert's Rules, although he stuck to this. A number of points of order were brought up, seconded, rejected, called for a vote. Essentially every alum in the room, other than the attending board members were adamant about the validity of these votes but the RAA would not take a count for a final validation. It was hotly contested with alums pointing out specific Bylaw, Robert's, and legal issues with the election and this proceeding.
To make it clear that the RAA board was 'not on board'. They insisted the meeting could only go until 1PM (1 hour) because the room was reserved at 1:30 for another meeting and an alternate venue could not be found. What do you know, the bigger banquet room upstairs was empty, I waited until almost 1:30 and no one else showed up - they locked the doors. A group announced at the meeting that there would be a continuation at the Hilton Garden because RPI couldn't find any place for them to meet on campus on a Saturday (formal requests were made). Way to treat alums. It is not like RPI doesn't have lecture halls to seat 100 people.
To be clear, I missed a golden entrepreneurial opportunity. I could have sold pitchforks, torches, and bad fruit at the door. It was quite testy but basically polite. It was acknowledged that board members were a volunteer position and that if they would represent the alums, it would all be OK. There was a bit of fuzziness as to whether the RAA represented only the alums or the alums and the school, although it was clear that they were only supporting the school at this point.
My best guess is that the alums (possibly represented by Renew Rensselaer) will end up suing the RAA to force more supervised and legitimate elections. I think all this will play into the support of Shirley Jackson, since it will take some time to resolve before it ever reaches her desk.
4/10/2019 The Dark Side Now Clearly Controls the Union Budget
poly.rpi.edu/2019/04/05/administrators-reject-request-changes-to-union-budget/?fbclid=IwAR0vKjR9PXEgezx1v_3kOmLPaKsWrGuGagU7YGndm0HbVGsiEcko3ntqUuA
From the Poly:
Administrators reject, request changes to Union budgetPosted on April 5, 2019 in News by Brookelyn Parslow, Senior Reporter
Madeline Wilson/The Polytechnic
CLASS OF 2021 SENATOR ADVAITH NARAYAN EXPLAINS why he objects to the consideration of the motion to approve the revised Union Annual Report.For the first time in at least 49 years, the Institute rejected the student-proposed Union budget and did not submit it to the president and Board of Trustees and for approval. The Executive Board was indirectly instructed to make two changes to the budget before it could be submitted: increase the enrollment estimate—and, as a result, the Union’s projected income—and restore around $57,000 of funding to a program that the Board had decided to cut.
While budgeting in December, the Executive Board decided to phase out $57,584 in funding to student staffing in athletic facilities like the Armory and the East Campus Athletic Village for Fiscal Year 2020. The Board felt that this athletic student staffing was leftover from when athletics budgeting was under the Union’s jurisdiction, and therefore wasn’t appropriate to include in the Union activity fee anymore, said former President of the Union Justin Etzine in a presentation to the Senate. The funding for a portion of ICA Athletics was included in the Union’s budget up until 2016, when it was announced that it would be moved to the overall Student Life budget.
Etzine explained his belief that this cut in funding coincided with a “breakdown of communication” between the Institute and the Union. The Institute did not provide enrollment estimates when members of the Union reached out for them. The Board and the Union Admin Office use these projections to start the budgeting process; they calculate the approximate income from the activity fee and use this number as a baseline “to ensure fee changes reflect needed budget changes.” Members of the Union came up with their own estimates by talking to other departments on campus.
When the budget was submitted, members of the Union were told by administrators that the enrollment estimate for undergraduate students in Fiscal Year 2020 was actually 6,700—as opposed to the 6,500 figure that was used. This would increase the Union’s income from student payment of the activity fee by approximately $81,000.
“When originally notified of this in February, we shared with Student Life that—if we receive the additional Activity Fee-paying members of the Union—we could make use of the additional funds to support our facilities and other needs throughout the Union,” wrote Etzine in a presentation to the Senate. “This is how we would handle any additional income in current or previous years.”
Etzine explained that these enrollment projections are often different from the Institute’s and there had never been an issue with this in the past. Since these numbers determine how much income the Union will receive from the activity fee, the Board has historically decided that it’s safer to be conservative. Overestimating this income could result in club budgets being cut after they’ve been approved and released to students, which Etzine feels would cause students to “lose faith in the budgeting process.”
After not hearing back about the status of the budget, members of the Union reached out. Etzine was told by members of the Union Admin Office that the budget had not been submitted to the president and Board of Trustees because it must be updated. Administrators, either in the Division of Finance or the Division of Student Life, required an increase in the enrollment estimate and the restoration of funding to the athletics staffing that the Board had decided to cut.
In the past, the student-approved Union budget has been sent to the Institute’s Division of Finance and Division of Student Life, added to the rest of the school’s budget, and sent to the president of the Institute and Board of Trustees for approval. This is the first time that the Institute has indirectly instructed students on the Executive Board to change the Union budget. There was no direct communication with Etzine throughout this process besides being cc’d on one email.
The E-Board is the budgeting body of the Union and as outlined in the Union Constitution, “It shall investigate, prepare, and approve the budget for the following fiscal year” and “administer the Union budget, appropriate Union funds and manage the business affairs of any and all facilities operated by the Rensselaer Union.” These items have been included in the Union Constitution for at least 32 years.
After being told to change the budget, students on the Board felt like they didn’t have any other options and decided to comply. Days later, Etzine presented the updated budget—in the form of the Union Annual Report—to the Senate for approval per normal operating procedures. He explained the full situation surrounding the changes.
“To me at least, looking at this, I feel like this singular action above all else has shown that a student-run Union is something that is in the past,” said David Raab ’19 during this Senate meeting. Raab was the Policies Committee chairperson of the E-Board when this situation occurred.
After the motion to approve the revised Union Annual Report was read, Class of 2021 Senator Advaith Narayan objected to the consideration of the question. “This doesn’t seem like a change that was brought forth by students … it seems to me like the E-Board was strong-armed into passing the budget. I don’t think this is something that the Senate should even be thinking about just because the whole reason it’s happening now just seems wrong,” said Narayan. The objection passed 12-5-6, so the motion was not technically heard, and there was no discussion on its merits.
Since the UAR is a separate document and the changes didn’t affect the activity fee per student, the changed budget stands. The UAR will not accurately reflect how the money is budgeted unless the revised UAR is passed or the budget is changed again.
Etzine suggested that a change in staffing might be the cause of the communication issues with the enrollment estimates at the beginning of budgeting. He does not believe that the decisions to not provide enrollment estimates and to direct the Board to change the funding to athletics staffing are linked, but still finds both decisions concerning. This is the first Union budgeting season done with Hough after former Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer Virginia Gregg’s retirement in June 2018.
It was unclear to the Board if this directive was issued by administrators in the Division of Student Life or the Division of Finance. When The Polytechnic reached out to Vice President for Finance and Chief Financial Officer Barbara J. Hough and Vice President for Student Life Peter Konwerski about how and why these decisions were made, Director of Media Relations and Communications Reeve Hamilton responded with the following statement:
During the Institute’s review of the initial budget that the Union presented to the Vice President of Student Life in early February, some miscalculations were identified, including the actual and projected number of enrolled students at Rensselaer.
Accordingly, Vice President Konwerski asked Director Potts to work with the Union student leadership to resubmit their budget incorporating the updated calculations.
The Union E-Board revised and unanimously approved the Budget on March 14 and it was accepted by Rensselaer leadership on March 27.
Vice President Konwerski and Vice President Hough look forward to further strengthening collaboration and communication with Union student leaders on an ongoing basis.
The statement did not address the directives to restore funding to athletic student staffing. The Polytechnic is awaiting comment on this topic.
In an email to The Polytechnic, recently-elected Grand Marshal Meagan Lettko wrote that she felt the Senate objected to consider the UAR because the “situation was rushed” and they needed more time to discuss internally. “We are working to resolve the UAR by providing an appendix that will detail the situation while continuing to honor the work that the UAR Committee put forth to create the document. Moving forward, I hope to be a part of conversations that allow for situations such as this to be avoided through communication and accountability,” wrote Lettko. Newly elected President of the Union Caitlin Kennedy said that the budgeting issues were, in her opinion, a result of “a mix of lingering communication issues with new people.” She plans to bring the UAR back to the Senate once it has been updated with the necessary changes and information. “I will work to create new, open lines of communication to avoid situations like these in the years to come. Our budgeting process is extremely unique and I hope to bring more awareness about our process and the rationale behind it,” wrote Kennedy.
4/11/2019 The RAA Return Volley is Fired
A friend of mine posted that the RAA email list has been purged of anyone who has been identified as expressing displeasure with how the RAA leadership has acted. I don't know this to be true, but it sounds very possible.
Here is a link. I am also attaching the latest email in case the link gets removed.
alumni.rpi.edu/controls/email_marketing/view_in_browser.aspx?sid=1225&gid=1&sendId=271818&fbclid=IwAR3xu9ZtXoLutoSVMyHun49YDp67BnmKAue_Fz-di5tdgsnrF1cmpiDi3C4
April 11, 2019
To: Rensselaer Alumni and Alumnae
From: Graig R. Eastin, Vice President, Institute Advancement and Interim Executive Director, Rensselaer Alumni Association and Kareem I. Muhammad ’01, President, Rensselaer Alumni Association
Re: Rensselaer Alumni Association
Some Rensselaer alumni/ae have received, or seen through social media posts, a communication from a group of individuals, led by Mr. Bill Criss, claiming to have been elected as the “interim” board of the Rensselaer Alumni Association (“RAA”). We are writing to inform you that these communications are blatantly false and should be disregarded. This group of individuals was never legitimately elected to positions with the RAA. The Bylaws of the RAA prescribe the process whereby the slate of proposed Trustees are approved, and New York law provides a means and timeline for members to challenge an election. Those responsible for the false communication have failed to meet the requirements of these laws and procedures, and have no authority whatsoever to speak or act on behalf of the RAA.
Accordingly, the RAA continues to operate as it has, with President Kareem Muhammad ’01, and the other Board members managing the organization in coordination with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to support continued, quality engagement opportunities for all Rensselaer alumni/ae.
The group falsely purporting to have established an “interim” RAA Board is a group, self-styled “Renew Rensselaer,” that has been opposed to many of the initiatives of the Institute for some time. Prior tactics engaged in by the group have included attempting to dissuade student applicants from enrolling at Rensselaer, and urging alumni/ae not to support Rensselaer. Fortunately, this group does not represent the vast majority of Rensselaer alumni/ae, who are well-represented by the legitimate RAA Board, and who support Rensselaer enthusiastically.