File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0211, message 59


Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 17:57:45 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: JCR


Hi Doug,

Thanks to you too.

I take it that you're saying that the proposed caretaker board for the
May issue has now definitely been scrapped.

It is actually important that journal issues come out on schedule (and
are competitively priced) if they are to succeed in the market - and
that has certainly been my intention. If Council acted with expedition,
the result of the bye-election could be known by the end of January (it
takes about seven weeks from the closure of nominations, and I've
allowed a couple of extra weeks). It should then be possible to bring
the May issue out on schedule.

>If you would submit to council as a 
>whole -- preferably without accompanying attack -- a list of 
>suggestions as to how we might better operate, I think we would 
>gratefully consider it.
[snip]
>operating 
>procedures you deem appropriate
[snip]
>Such procedures if you insist on them 

I will take your advice and not make them conditional upon my standing,
but rather put them on my platform (if I stand). As for your first
suggestion above, with respect, it's surely up to Council to locate and
adopt suitable procedures, not me - I'm no longer on Council. You speak
as if procedures were some idiosyncracy of mine. Is it really the case
that the whole of the generation after mine knows nothing about proper
meeting procedure? In the seventies, eighties and nineties in Australia
(and Rachel tells me in the UK too from her experience), at any rate, it
was standard for academic committees, trade unions, voluntary
associations etc to know and apply their Joske, *Rules of Meeting
Procedure* or whatever it's called. The thing is, you can't have genuine
democracy without some agreed rules. So there should be an agenda and an
established order of business (in early October the issue of JCR-only
sub rates should have had priority, as it had been raised it first;
instead Steve came over the top with "should we have an editor".) On
important issues, motions should be put (by any councillor) and
seconded, then debated openly in an orderly way within an established
time frame (preferably not months!), with the mover having the right of
reply at the end; ad hominem comments etc to be ruled out of order by
the chair. Then a vote should be taken, either by open vote or by secret
ballot; etc etc. If such procedures had been in place I believe our
recent history would have been very different; I (as well as all
concerned, and the journal, members, contributors and critical realists
generally) have been a victim of their lack.

Best,

Mervyn

Doug Porpora <porporad-AT-drexel.edu> writes
>Thank you, Mervyn,
>
>My understanding is that "immediately" means as soon as it can be got 
>going.  There are some constitutional stipulations about how long 
>things are to take and some procedural issues such as you mention 
>that need to be worked out. But you should be receiving notification 
>shortly.
>
>The primary motive behind an immediate election is not to deter you 
>from undertaking a new journal but to prevent an evident crisis of 
>legitimacy from going on until August when a democratic vote of all 
>the membership can resolve it now.
>
>Also, although the November issue of the journal is already in press, 
>I argued in council that to wait until August with a caretaker board 
>preparing the May -- is it? -- issue would put you at a disadvantage 
>in a future election.  Council seems to have accepted this reasoning.
>
>No, I agree you never called council a cabal.  I think shambles is a 
>little strong, but I can agree we were little prepared to handle this 
>kind of situation effectively.  If you would submit to council as a 
>whole -- preferably without accompanying attack -- a list of 
>suggestions as to how we might better operate, I think we would 
>gratefully consider it.
>
>I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your questions about print run 
>and such. You should know that your views carry more weight on 
>council than you may realize.  I think it is largely because of your 
>insistence on the importance of schedule that council first thought 
>to appoint a care-taker board to get the May issue out.  That was one 
>big reason why council did not initially opt for an immediate 
>bye-election.
>
>My own view is that the timely publication of the May issue was a 
>misplaced priority.  Against it, some of us argued that keeping to 
>schedule was less important than resolving this conflict 
>democratically and fairly. So an immediate bye-election probably 
>means that the May issue will not come out on time.  It will have to 
>wait for a newly elected editor to put it together.
>
>I completely agree with you that fair campaign procedures need to be 
>established up front, and council is working on this.
>
>I very much hope you will stand for editor, and, as I say, I will 
>support you. I would ask that you not make your willingness even to 
>stand contingent on council's compliance in advance with operating 
>procedures you deem appropriate -- especially as they exceed 
>relations with the JCR editor.  Such procedures if you insist on them 
>more properly belong to your campaign platform.  Should the vote 
>grant you a mandate, you would be in a stronger position to change 
>things for the better.
>
>Thanks again for your kind reply.
>
>doug
>
>
>>Hi Doug,
>>
>>I do think your account glosses some things and gets others wrong; this
>>is partly perhaps because I experienced at first hand the way e.g. Steve
>>handled the issues. But, as you imply, there's little point in debating
>>the details now, so I'll just say that I stand by the accounts I've put
>>into the public arena. Also, I very much appreciate your confidence in
>me and support.
>>
>>It's disappointing that you provide no details of the bye-election. How
>>immediate is 'immediately'? I've announced a new journal, and setting it
>>up is in process - every day that passes will make this process more
>>difficult to reverse. This JCR mess has been going on for seven weeks
>>now. I can't just sit on my hands indefinitely while Council's
>>deliberations drag on. Other than what you've told me, I don't have a
>>clue what is going on on Council, since I'm no longer a member and
>>nobody is keeping me informed.
>>
>>I'm also very disappointed that there is no news yet of what's happening
>>re the launch issue of JCR 1:1 which I sent to NTU all laid out and
>>ready to go on October 20. Is the printer whose quote I had accepted
>>being used? Has the layout and design which I had established been
>>altered? (If it has, there wouldn't be continuity if I resumed the
>>editorship). How big is the print run going to be? What is the cost of
>>production per unit? Will it be made available at all at a competitive
>>market price? When can we expect it?
>>
>>I would consider standing for a bye-election if it was announced
>>forthwith. I would *not* stand if Council has appointed a caretaker
>>board with a view to bringing out JCR 1:2. One shouldn't have to say
>>these things, but if there is an election the contestants must
>>themselves be allowed to put their case and terms to the membership, and
>>the vote must be by secret ballot and properly scrutineered by nominees
>>of the contestants. I would also want an assurance from Council that it
>>had adopted proper meeting and voting procedures and rules of fair
>>comment, and taken steps to ensure open and transparent decision making
>>- I could not work with Council if it continued to conduct its business
>>in the old way (I've never said it's a cabal, it's more like a
>>shambles); if proper procedure had been followed, I believe I would have
>>been back in the editorship long ago - indeed, I probably would never
>>have resigned and the mess, destruction and waste could have been
>>avoided. Since Steve freely admits he knows nothing about due process,
>>the simplest way of ensuring it would be for him to delegate the Chair
>>to someone who does know. This is a quite common procedure in academic
>>committees, and it is viewed positively because it frees up the Head for
>>other work.
>>
>>On the question of the NTU Agreement, yes, Doug, it was I who negotiated
>>it (with Margaret Archer) and who sold it to IACR Council - a fact never
>>mentioned by Steve - and it was I who tried very hard to make it work.
>>That is one reason why I was so deeply offended by the failure of Steve
>>or anyone else on Council to seek out my views as to how it actually was
>>working - instead, they simply took Justin's word for it, including the
>>view that I was threatening it. To fail to consult with the relevant
>>member of your own Secretariat on such a matter, while consulting with
>>others behind his back, is not, I'm afraid, 'honourable'; I would wish
>>for the future to be consulted on all important issues affecting JCR.
>>
>>Mervyn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Doug Porpora <porporad-AT-drexel.edu> writes
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>I am posting today as a member of the IACR Council to give my take on
>>>what has transpired with the Journal of Critical Realism.
>>>
>>>There has been a lot of speculation as to why the Council and
>>>councilors on the Bhaskar list have so far kept silent.  The only
>>  >reason is that as councilors, we do not speak as individuals but
>>>represent council.  It was hard for us to know as individuals how
>>>best to go about this. After issuing a collective statement, which
>>>was understandably received as an aloof pronouncement from on high,
>>>we finally considered that a councilor should go live onto Bhaskar to
>>>explain the situation from council's point of view.  For some reason,
>>>I volunteered to do so.  I am not in a position to speak on
>>>everything and so will only give a take from my partial point of
>>>view. I suppose what I am saying is that even I cannot represent
>>>council per se but only a view from one council member.
>>>
>>>  From what I have just said, it sounds as if IACR Council was not
>>>particularly organized in its response to the entire situation.  That
>>>is true.  It must be remembered that councilors come from different
>>>countries and are connected largely by email.  Until this
>>>controversy, issues were rather sedate.  As a group, council was thus
>>>less prepared than an individual would be to keep up with swiftly
>>>moving events.  There is a need for us to deliberate -- across time
>>>zones -- before acting. This placed an enormous burden on Steve
>>>Fleetwood, the General Secretary, whom, I believe, has acted
>>>patiently and honorably.
>>>
>>>I will relate what I remember as the chronology of events. I do not
>>>have all my emails here at home and so cannot specify exact dates. I
>>>will try to relate all this as objectively as I can.  I do not know
>>>if Justin is on this list, but Mervyn may not consider what I say to
>>>be objective.  So, I repeat, I say what I do solely from my own
>>>perspective.
>>>
>>>I would like to say as well that I have been and continue to be a
>>>supporter of Mervyn.  I do think he has done a fantastic job with JCR
>>  >and in that capacity has lent great service to IACR. I supported
>>>Mervyn on every initiative he proposed -- including the connection
>>>with and then the disconnection from NTU.  Faced with the two stark
>>>choices council was ultimately presented, I was one of the five who
>>>voted to keep Mervyn as editor.  I was further one of the councilors
>>>who urged council to hold a bye-election immediately as Mervyn wanted
>>>and as I think will now be done.  Were that election held today, I
>>>would still support Mervyn as editor.
>>>
>>>My memory is that it was Mervyn who first made the case that a
>>>connection with NTU was advantageous to JCR.  After discussion,
>>>council eventually supported it.
>>>
>>>Sometime in October, there was what used to be called a "flame war"
>>>on the Council listserv between Justin and Mervyn over JCR.  Each was
>>>accusing the other of "defaming" him.
>>>
>>>Because councilors are located in different countries, it was
>>>impossible for many of us to know what was going on.  I remember
>>>sending a message to the listserv calling for some form of mediation.
>>>As I recall, that call was seconded by others and some initiative was
>>>taken toward that end.
>>>
>>>Perhaps what we needed more was some kind of fact-funding mission,
>>>but the initiative was framed as mediation and that is how it
>>>proceeded.  The problem was that mediation had great difficulty
>>>getting off the ground. My memory is that Justin and Mervyn both
>>>attached conditions even to participating in mediation.  These
>>>included real issues -- such as who would or would not be part of the
>>>mediation team -- and such unhelpful issues as who needed first to
>>>apologize to whom for what.
>>>
>>>Along the way, Mervyn resigned, charging that Justin and the General
>>>Secretary were plotting behind his back in a procedurally
>>>illegitimate way.  With the General Secretary now declared partisan
>>>and no mediation process to deliver what all would consider neutral
>>>facts, most councilors remained without knowledge.
>>>
>>>I can only say I personally saw no evidence of partisanship in the
>>>way the General Secretary tried to handle the situation.  Some of
>>>what Mervyn had said about the General Secretary easily could itself
>>>be considered defamatory.  I accordingly wrote the General Secretary
>>  >privately, urged him not to take what Mervyn had said personally and
>>>not to accept Mervyn's resignation.
>>>
>>>The General Secretary wrote me back assuring me he did not take the
>>>charges personally and was simply doing all he could to resolve the
>>>issue.
>>>
>>>My memory then was that after more abortive negotiations, Mervyn
>>>maintained his resignation.  The General Secretary came back to
>>>council with two stark choices:
>>>Keep Mervyn and sever JCR's tie with NTU or the reverse.
>>>
>>>It is true that council went to an immediate vote on this without the
>>>discussion I personally would like to have seen.  But
>>>misunderstandings happen, especially over the net.  The fact is that
>>>7 councilors voted to keep the NTU connection and 5 voted to keep
>>>Mervyn.
>>>
>>>My sense is that those who voted to keep the NTU connection were
>>>voting for that and not to displace Mervyn.  It is a connection the
>>>importance of which Mervyn himself had previously urged on council.
>>>
>>>As things continued to get worse, council discussed Mervyn's claim
>>>that a bye-election should be called.  That, I believe, has been
>>>accepted by council.  It was further accepted, I believe, that it
>>>should be held immediately.  It is my understanding that contrary to
>>>what I believe Mervyn alleges somewhere, a bye-election is not
>>>required by council in such circumstance but is only an option.
>>>Council has not been plotting some backroom conspiracy against IACR
>>>or critical realism in general but trying only to resolve an issue
>>>its members have been elected to address.
>>>
>>>As I think Mervyn suggests in a recent post, Phil's diagnosis of a
>>>presumed theoretical conflict within critical realism is overly
>>>simple.  I certainly think dialectically and am associated with the
>>>"spiritual turn" in critical realism.  Yet I remain more comfortable
>>>with plain old CR as opposed to DCR or even TDCR.  In Phil's terms, I
>>  >think of cr more as a tool than as a philosophy of life.  In any
>>>case, I have not been purged from council and nor has anyone yet made
>>>me feel unloved -- conditionally or otherwise. Council is not a cabal
>>>and the issue has been largely administrative rather than
>>>theoretical.  The fact is that the mutual antagonism between Justin
>>>and Mervyn succeeded in making it very difficult for councilors even
>>>to know what was going on.
>>>
>>>In closing, let me reiterate that what I have said is only my take as
>>>a councilor on what happened.  I am sure Mervyn or Justin can say I
>>>left this or that out or glossed over this or that point.  I do not
>>>intend to debate details.  What I am trying to depict in this post is
>>>less what actually happened than how a councilor who has consistently
>>>supported Mervyn and who will continue to do so sees things.  I will
>>>likely continue to support Mervyn even if he now lambastes me for
>>>this because in addition to loving him unconditionally, I think his
>>>contribution to critical realism merits that support.  While I agree
>>>with him on that, I don't agree with the way he has represented
>>>council, the General Secretary, or us councilors.
>>>
>>>doug
>>>
>>>p.s. If people on this list really want to support Mervyn, they
>>>should join IACR and vote.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>This e-mail is intended for the named recipient only and may be privileged
>>or confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient please notify me
>>immediately.
>>
>>Mervyn Hartwig
>>13 Spenser Road
>>Herne Hill
>>London SE24 ONS
>>United Kingdom
>>Tel: 020 7 737 2892
>>Email: <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>There is another world, but it is in this one.
>>Paul Eluard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>

-- 
This e-mail is intended for the named recipient only and may be privileged 
or confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient please notify me 
immediately.

Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>

There is another world, but it is in this one.
Paul Eluard




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005