UiS: Intense debate on merger with HSH; UiS should disclose all relevant documents

The rector of University of Stavanger and others, including two heads of department, have written opinion pieces on the ongoing merger negotiations on the debate pages of University of Stavanger. An extraordinary board meeting will be held this Sunday, to decide whether or not UiS will merge with Stord/Haugesund University College.

As mentioned earlier in this blog, I oppose this merger. What is more, I think the merger process should have been much more transparent. Board meetings have been closed to the general public, and documents have not been publicly disclosed. That is not a good way of leading an important process for the whole institution. I recommend that the university director releases all relevant documents ahead of the board meeting on June 21st. As a 2nd deputy member of the UiS board, I only got relevant documents from the last meeting today after asking the permanent member representing temporarily employed staff.

Debate text on transparency published on webpage of UiS

I have taken part in a debate online, on the webpage of University of Stavanger, on the topic "Vald eller tilsett rektor?" [Elected or employed rector?], which was started by permanent member of the board of UiS Bjørn Kvalsvik Nicolaysen, by writing a text entitled "Eksempel på manglende åpenhet" [Example of lacking transparency] (text no. 11) which was published Friday February 21st.

The full text of this brief debate text has also been posted in my Norwegian language blog Utopisk Realisme.

New ISBS constitution and board: About a backroom deal

The International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS) has now uploaded its new constitution and a brief report from its first ever General Meeting, held in Tartu, Estonia, on July 20th. Since I played a role with regard to both the new statutes and at the General Meeting, here's a brief report from my side.

A draft of the constitution (the old board's proposal) was distributed on July 18th, the day after the 12th gathering in biosemiotics started. It had several flaws. I wrote to Jesper Hoffmeyer, the president of the ISBS, and Kalevi Kull of Tartu, about my concerns, and also talked with Sara Cannizzaro, who acted as the ISBS' Vice-president after Don Favareau stepped down. We agreed that Jesper, Sara and I should meet informally to see whether we could sort things out ahead of the General Meeting, and so we did, on the afternoon of July 18th (at Leigo farmstead). After half an hour's talk we agreed that Jesper would go through my concerns point by point and see what he could change.

On the morning of the day after, on the 19th, I received a revised draft where only one or none substantial change had been made. I then replied that I would raise my concerns at the General Meeting after all. Later that afternoon Kalevi, my former supervisor, came over during dinner to negotiate. Practically all my suggestions had now been incorporated into the board's constitution draft, and I gladly approved of it. The changes made due to this included (in addition to making a few points clearer or more accurate):

 - that the board's annual report is to be presented to members, not just the board itself - at an annual General Meeting (and indeed that annual General Meetings will be held)

 - that a rule stipulating that members at elections "will give a vite 'for' or 'against' each candidate" was dropped (a rule I feared would trigger conflict) in favour of the more common positive/blank voting

 - that the constitution may only be changed at General Meetings, not by the board

I am happy I thus contributed to making the ISBS a little more democratic and transparent. But as the decision-making process described above illustrates, this learned society still has some way to go in terms of being inclusive (there were complaints at the General Meeting about the board's attempts to avoid discussion, and the decision that no substantial changes to the constitution could be proposed at the General Meeting).

Tomorrow: "New ISBS constitution and board: About the election drama"