Re: When do we start that debate...?

nuri t jazairi (nuri@YORKU.CA)
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:40:48 -0400


I think instead of saying we don't need standard rules for all
departments, we should say let us have strict and explicit rules and hope
we will never have to use them. On May 5 during the strike, I wrote on
yufa-l the following message explaining why sometime we need rules which I
shall just reproduce here:

.......................................................
Ref: Gerry Gold and Barbara Cameron on 'governance':

We all agree that more bureaucracy in one form (and name) or another is
not a very good idea. But we must first ask what lies behind it. The
fewer the rules the better - if there are no problems. Britain, for
example, has very few written laws, yet it is one of the best rule-of-law
countries in the world. The United States is also a rule-of-law country
but it has (too) many laws.

The question therefore is not whether 'governance' as a set of clear rules
and procedures and criteria is a good thing by itself. The system at York
has failed. This is the reality. The 'fairness in governance' is the idea
to deal with this reality. And as a well-known wise man once said:
"Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow."
......................................................

Nuri Jazairi

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Robert Drummond wrote:
>
> Political science, as you might expect, survived for many years with an
> unwritten constitution. More recently we prepared and agreed to a brief
> written constitution. I doubt there is a need for a standard version;
> departments may choose their own. Some guidance about what should be
> included might serve as free advice however. Regards, Bob
> --
> Robert J. Drummond, Associate Professor
> Political Science, York University
> 4700 Keele St., North York, Ontario
> Canada M3J 1P3
> Office: (416) 736-5265
> e-mail: robertd@yorku.ca
>