> But I realize that petty personal preferences must be subordinated to a
> greater good (who am I to prefer Raphael to the elegant simplicity of the
> new NIU logo?).
I'm in full agreement. My responses are not based on personal
grievances, but rather on concern for the greater good. The fundamental
issue isn't homepages, but how policies are made and communicated.
That none of us had significant input into the "official" homepage
policy and that the policy is an ambiguous and generally unhelpful
document that could have been produced in about 15 minutes is a
minor nuisance. The fact that, despite months of repeated requests
for information about the new policy and the deliberation process
produced only frustrating silence is very, very, serious.
That Mike Malone, in his capacity as an agent for the Office of the
Vice President and as chief architect of the homepage policy dismissed
criticism of his behavior as simply too much caffeine or too many
Oliver Stone movies. I'll leave the meaning of his irrelevantly
gratuitous insults to others. What his comments do not mean, however,
believes that Lowden Hall policy makers are accountable to those whom the
policies affect. Remember what he wrote:
> Jim says I "owe an explanation for ...[my] disregard of the issues
> that have been raised here." I was not aware that members of the
> list were under any obligation to respond to any given issue.
This astonishing misrepresenation of the context of requests and
criticisms is secondary to the subtext: A Lowden Hall policy
architect feels himself above communicating to outsiders critically
important information about those policies to others.
This is hardly a personal issue---it's a reflection of a fundamental
problem in governance that, for the greater good, cannot be dropped.
jt