More Pramuk/Goldberg Lies Alleged
“They [BoT]Â thought the consequences would be minimal because the arrests were
considered a misdemeanor. Wilton explained our meetings with Hillel
Goldberg, Carl Pramuk, and Michael Moore and that we also were told that
the consequences would be minimal but now that the students are going
to their pre-trial, and we are getting a different story.”
“Many on the Board had no idea of these disciplinary actions. They
thought the consequences would be minimal because the arrests were
considered a misdemeanor” excerpts from PUG letter below
Now we have more people, two PUG FSSA members and also eight members who had the same impression that the reprisals would be minimal. We see that the PUG members saying they were informed by Pramuk and Goldberg. This reinforced Hlibok’s claim he was relaying the information from Carl Pramuk. Where would the BoT get the information that the reprisals would be proportional to the offense?
Why were untruthful statements made that day? To mislead everybody so the protest will stop?
Why were the students informed that the reprisals would go ahead on the last week of school, when they are busy completing papers and studying for exams? This is a deja vu of the announcement of the president appointee announced on the last week of school. elizabeth
Breakfast Meeting with BOT: November 11, 2006
Wilton and Tami had the wonderful opportunity to meet with many members of
the Board of Trustees on Saturday morning at 7:00 a.m. in the Bistro at the
Kellogg Conference Center at Gallaudet. Susan Elliot was so kind to put this
informal breakfast meeting together for us since the Board did not have time
on their agenda to allow room for PUG to present.However, this breakfast meeting turned out to be one hour and a half which was
an incredible amount of time to get the full attention of the individual board
members that showed up. Those that came were:
Susan Elliot, Harvey Goodstein, Ben Soukup, Cheryl Heppner, Bill Graham,
Pamela Lloyd-Ogoke, Dick Kinney, and Chris Sullivan.
We began our meeting by explaining a little bit about PUG and how we
came to be organized. We informed them that our size has grown to over
200 members in less than four weeks and that we also have
prospective parents wanting to join. We described PUG as a diverse
group of parents who came together to support and stand behind our
adult children. Wilton explained that our purpose in the future might
be to become one of the best recruitment systems for Gallaudet. They
seemed to be quite impressed.
Our first issue and suggestion on the agenda was Reprisals. We asked
for amnesty of all reprisals involved in the protest. We explained how
lack of neutral mediation and lack of attention to the students’
requests from the BOT and Administration caused the protest to occur.
We stated that this protest was not supported by one group alone and
that faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni, deaf leaders, and the
Deaf Community came to support and back the students demands. The
actions that occurred were within the framework of a peaceful protest
and had begun because of the total lack of response from the BOT and
Administration.One of the BOT members interrupted and said to Wilton and Tami that
the students who were arrested and those that used force
against DPS were to be held accountable. We said “no†– our students
never used force against the DPS and that the opposite was true. I
told the Board members that I was there for three weeks and saw the acts that
took place and was witness to the things that IKJ did against the
protesters. We talked about the bulldozing of tents and opening of
gates incidents and what we saw first hand. We stated if the BOT must
hold someone “Accountable†then it should be everyone involved including
the BOT, Administration, Students, Staff, Alumni, Parents, World
Leaders, and the thousands that marched to Capitol Hill.
We asked that the Judicial Affairs be put on hold until an impartial
committee investigates the mandates by Administration and policies and
procedures. We also explained that reprisals have already occurred
without mediation, without investigation, and without due process. We
gave examples of student and faculty job losses and internship suspensions
for those students arrested. Students are being told at Pre-hearings these
possible disciplinary actions may include suspension from sports activity.
Many on the Board had no idea of these disciplinary actions. They
thought the consequences would be minimal because the arrests were
considered a misdemeanor. Wilton explained our meetings with Hillel
Goldberg, Carl Pramuk, and Michael Moore and that we also were told that
the consequences would be minimal but now that the students are going
to their pre-trial, and we are getting a different story.We told the Board that we are proud of those students for standing up
for what they believe in and willing to be arrested for the future of
Gallaudet. But we are not willing for them to be the ones who have to
be held totally “accountableâ€.
Overall we felt like the BOT gave us a lot of attention and listened
to our input and hopefully learned some important things from our
conversation. They gave no input as to their plans but simply
listened.We thanked Susan Elliot for setting up the meeting and thanked
all those who came to listen to PUG’s input.Tami Hossler and Wilton McMillan http://gallyparentsunited.blogspot.com/2006/11/saturday-breakfast-meeting-with.htmlemail contact: mishkazena@aol.com
“They [BoT]Â thought the consequences would be minimal because the arrests were
considered a misdemeanor. Wilton explained our meetings with Hillel
Goldberg, Carl Pramuk, and Michael Moore and that we also were told that
the consequences would be minimal but now that the students are going
to their pre-trial, and we are getting a different story.”
“Many on the Board had no idea of these disciplinary actions. They
thought the consequences would be minimal because the arrests were
considered a misdemeanor” excerpts from PUG letter below
Now we have more people, two PUG FSSA members and also eight members who had the same impression that the reprisals would be minimal. We see that the PUG members saying they were informed by Pramuk and Goldberg. This reinforced Hlibok’s claim he was relaying the information from Carl Pramuk. Where would the BoT get the information that the reprisals would be proportional to the offense?
Why were untruthful statements made that day? To mislead everybody so the protest will stop?
Why were the students informed that the reprisals would go ahead on the last week of school, when they are busy completing papers and studying for exams? This is a deja vu of the announcement of the president appointee announced on the last week of school. elizabeth
Breakfast Meeting with BOT: November 11, 2006
Wilton and Tami had the wonderful opportunity to meet with many members of
the Board of Trustees on Saturday morning at 7:00 a.m. in the Bistro at the
Kellogg Conference Center at Gallaudet. Susan Elliot was so kind to put this
informal breakfast meeting together for us since the Board did not have time
on their agenda to allow room for PUG to present.However, this breakfast meeting turned out to be one hour and a half which was
an incredible amount of time to get the full attention of the individual board
members that showed up. Those that came were:
Susan Elliot, Harvey Goodstein, Ben Soukup, Cheryl Heppner, Bill Graham,
Pamela Lloyd-Ogoke, Dick Kinney, and Chris Sullivan.
We began our meeting by explaining a little bit about PUG and how we
came to be organized. We informed them that our size has grown to over
200 members in less than four weeks and that we also have
prospective parents wanting to join. We described PUG as a diverse
group of parents who came together to support and stand behind our
adult children. Wilton explained that our purpose in the future might
be to become one of the best recruitment systems for Gallaudet. They
seemed to be quite impressed.
Our first issue and suggestion on the agenda was Reprisals. We asked
for amnesty of all reprisals involved in the protest. We explained how
lack of neutral mediation and lack of attention to the students’
requests from the BOT and Administration caused the protest to occur.
We stated that this protest was not supported by one group alone and
that faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni, deaf leaders, and the
Deaf Community came to support and back the students demands. The
actions that occurred were within the framework of a peaceful protest
and had begun because of the total lack of response from the BOT and
Administration.One of the BOT members interrupted and said to Wilton and Tami that
the students who were arrested and those that used force
against DPS were to be held accountable. We said “no†– our students
never used force against the DPS and that the opposite was true. I
told the Board members that I was there for three weeks and saw the acts that
took place and was witness to the things that IKJ did against the
protesters. We talked about the bulldozing of tents and opening of
gates incidents and what we saw first hand. We stated if the BOT must
hold someone “Accountable†then it should be everyone involved including
the BOT, Administration, Students, Staff, Alumni, Parents, World
Leaders, and the thousands that marched to Capitol Hill.
We asked that the Judicial Affairs be put on hold until an impartial
committee investigates the mandates by Administration and policies and
procedures. We also explained that reprisals have already occurred
without mediation, without investigation, and without due process. We
gave examples of student and faculty job losses and internship suspensions
for those students arrested. Students are being told at Pre-hearings these
possible disciplinary actions may include suspension from sports activity.
Many on the Board had no idea of these disciplinary actions. They
thought the consequences would be minimal because the arrests were
considered a misdemeanor. Wilton explained our meetings with Hillel
Goldberg, Carl Pramuk, and Michael Moore and that we also were told that
the consequences would be minimal but now that the students are going
to their pre-trial, and we are getting a different story.We told the Board that we are proud of those students for standing up
for what they believe in and willing to be arrested for the future of
Gallaudet. But we are not willing for them to be the ones who have to
be held totally “accountableâ€.
Overall we felt like the BOT gave us a lot of attention and listened
to our input and hopefully learned some important things from our
conversation. They gave no input as to their plans but simply
listened.We thanked Susan Elliot for setting up the meeting and thanked
all those who came to listen to PUG’s input.Tami Hossler and Wilton McMillan http://gallyparentsunited.blogspot.com/2006/11/saturday-breakfast-meeting-with.htmlemail contact: mishkazena@aol.com
December 18th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Honestly, we need another protest. This time, it is about the reprisals
We were fighting for our right to be equals. And now the students & staff are being punished for it?
That’s BULLSHIT! That’s audism!
Time to stop talking and start protesting!
December 18th, 2006 at 11:05 am
I don’t know about another protest. Everyone’s really exhausted, it seems like.
I think we, as a community, need to put more pressure on the BoTs and ask more questions regarding the evidence they got from IKJ admin.
Have someone from BoT come forward and explain IN PERSON – not by email or newspaper.
Or has this already been done?
This is indeed very frustrating.
Davila’s hands are tied but hopefully he can help somewhat?
I don’t know…by talking about it?
I’m curious to see how things go when he takes office in January with students gone – the ones who made this happen for him.
It’s a tough job for Davila – I wouldn’t wish to be in his shoes.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:38 am
When you say that promises were made, you will have to clarify the timeline instead of relying on “he said, she said.”
Assuming (and this still hasn’t been proven) Carl Pramuk and other administration folks made promises to the student reps, did he, in fact, have the authority to make those promises? As I recall, the ultimate authority is or was IKJ. Also, even if Pramuk made these promises, it could be argued the campus code of conduct precluded him from doing so.
Also, when I said you need to clarify the timeline involved, I was thinking of this particular situation where the administration thought that it had an agreement with the student reps about not occupying buildings only to find out that there weren’t, as in the occupation of the HMB, the administration could have thought that all promises made before that could be null and void. So, the point is, the promise, if, in fact made, could have been changed by later events. Also, promises made to one person may not have been applicable to other people, if that makes sense.
Now, statements made by individual members of the Board of Trustees are not legally applicable. The Board of Trustees exists as a single unitary group and statements made in its name are legally actionable. When the BoT said that the disciplinary action could proceed, the BoT should have known the consequences of its actions. After all, the BoT said that it had reviewed the proposed disciplinary actions and found that they were correct. Now, if, in fact, individual trustees are saying they didn’t know what the consequences are, that doesn’t say very much for their independence and thought as well as effectiveness.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I find it hard to believe that BoT members didn’t know exactly what kind of reprisals they would be meting out. If this was true, this is like a rubber-stamp government that quickly approved actions IKJ and his Administration wanted without regards to the consequences. This was what I referred to in my “Changing of the Guards” cartoon. The BoT needs to do some soul-searching and correct the mistakes they just made.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I agree with Melissa. Unfortunately BoT isn’t forthcoming with Gallaudet Community and so far had shown no interest in hearing from them. Frankly I don’t understand their attitude.
Anon, the statements were made the day after BoT rescinded the presidential appointment of Fernandes and after the active part of the protest ended. That would be at the end of Oct. However, the date Pramuk and Goldberg informed the PUG representatives, I am not sure, but it was also after Fernandes’s resignation.
I totally agree that the ultimate person to decide the reprisals is Jordan. However, Pramuk shouldn’t have made these statements if he was unable to follow up. Because the protesters, especially the students and FSSA, felt misled and now betrayed.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Well, then, the students should probably discuss this matter with Davila himself. As the interim president, I would think that he can find out what has and what has not been promised to the student protesters. Now, the BoT didn’t say that the protesters would be punished; they left the decision up to the judicial system and that’s ultimately the admin and that’s up to Davila in January, correct?
I think that Davila has the clean hands and moral authority after this mess to clear up the whole affair, one way or another.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
I wonder if McCain left the Board of Trustees because they were completely unprofessional (as in clueless) about their work on behalf of Gallaudet. Just a random speculation.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Anon, the problem is that the reprisals are already happening when they are supposed to wait until Judicial Affairs proceeding start. The students are already severely punished and they haven’t had their day in the court.
McCain? Who knows? I think he left to devote on his presidential campaign and didn’t want to be ‘tainted’ with Gallaudet due to negative media coverage.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Remember that Jordan and McCain go way back, all the way back to 1988.
Jordan met one of McCain’s staffers in his legislative office, if I am repeating the story correctly. Jordan mentioned he was in the Navy and the staffer wanted to know what ship he was on, but Jordan wasn’t able to answer!
I’m not sure what that story means, but that’s the story I was told. Was Jordan really on a ship in the Navy? Who knows the answer. Was Jordan lying about it?