Talk:Ferdinand von Prondzynski

Need for adjustment to have some proportionality.

The article in its current form gives far too much space to certain controversies, which in the overall context of the subject's career were not as central as the space given to them suggests. All universities have regular disputes and arguments, these were not that special. They deserve some mention, but not to this excessive extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.149.15 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent editing on "vote" topic

This article has been the subject recently of some frantic editing and counter-editing, which looks to a neutral observer to be based on people with vested interests spinning (or obscuring or censoring) their particular views. It seems to arise from litigation concerning two DCU staff, and recent debates in DCU about disciplinary processes. Similar stuff has been going on on the Dublin City University article, which I think also needs attention.

I have edited the article to ensure it stays close to the objective facts - I am closely acquainted with these, as I work in DCU.

I believe the passages on recent controversies should remain in (and not be removed all the time), but they also need to stay objectively true. Therefore I have removed references to the President and Secretary in the context of the SIPTU vote: I have the SIPTU motions in front of me now, and there is no reference there to the President or Secretary as the editor has claimed.

I have also removed the citation using the UCD student newspaper: that article makes no reference at all to these events; however, a reader (signed, and probably one of the DCU litigants) has more or less a propos of nothing added material with some doubtful spin. I do not think it is an appropriate authority for the article here. The previous editor also added comments about the litigation, including a claim that von Prondzynski seeks to dismiss staff without cause. I have read the entire case on which this is based, and no such claim arises anywhere in it (the case can be read at http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H20.html). Moreover, von Prondzynski has sent emails to DCU staff explicitly rejecting the suggestion that he wants any such right or believes that he has it - pointing to wider legislation in that regard. I would strongly urge that the editing and counter-editing should stop. It's infantile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.61.138 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read the full documentation on this case and the many newspapers articles since the judgement. It is clear to me that the University on the recommendation of Von Prondzynski sought to terminate the appointment of a senior academic for 'no wrongdoing, cause or reason' claiming only that his contract of employment allowed it by the giving of three months notice. They cite the Hull vs Page case in Hull University (which is in the judgement for all to see) as the precedent in law that the Irish courts should follow in this instance. For 62.40.61.138 to claim that 'no such case arises' is blatantly incorrect and misleading. Prondzynski was of course at Hull university when this case arose with Edgar Page. The fact that the university in introducing new statutes on suspension and dismissal failed to 'provide for the tenure' of its academic staff is at the heart of this case and a determination whether tenure was merely a contract of employment that could be terminated on the giving of three months notice without cause or reason, as argued by the university (Academicland (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

As I review the history, good to see some commonsense. Indeed that second reference is weak. But Indymedia (which I would rate as a hardworking, if sometimes honestly opinionated source) does mention the following, which relates to one of the points:

Motion 3 declaring censure and No Confidence in the outgoing President, Ferdinand Von Prondzynski, and the Secretary of the University, Mr. Martin Conry, culminates from several years of litigation and industrial relations disharmony at the University as a direct result of the attempted introduction of a controversial university statute, penned by Von Prondzynski, an industrial relations academic lawyer, in 2001.

...The Labour relations commission (LRC), the Rights Commissioner and more recently, the High Court all adjudicated against...attempt to have the power to hire and fire academic staff at the university as he so pleases for no good cause or reason and thereby end 'academic tenure' at the university.

The best way to close the matter would be to post a link to the ballot and results, if someone has same, from a DCU or SIPTU site, say. SeoR (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

From: SIPTU <Section.Committee@dcu.ie> Date: 21 November 2008 11:15:10 GMT To: $dcustaff <dcustaff@list.dcu.ie> Cc: "ed >> SIPTU Education Branch" <educationbr@siptu.ie> Subject: [DCUstaff]Results of Ballot

Dear SIPTU Members,

The Section Committee would like to sincerely thank all those members who turned out to participate and vote in yesterdays important ballot.

All four Motions for Ballot were carried with a clear majority in each case.

The Motions carried are summarised below.

Motion 1: SIPTU encourage University Management not to abandon procedures of natural justice by adopting summary dismissals for any staff member with notice but without cause.

Motion 2: SIPTU guarantee that University Management provides for ‘tenure’ of all permanent members of academic staff by explicitly defining tenure in Statute in both a transparent and meaningful manner.

Motion 3: Motion of Censure and NO confidence in the senior management of the University.

Motion 4: SIPTU defend academic freedom, tenure and natural justice by requiring that Statute 3 contain procedures for suspension and dismissal of an employee or academic staff member that are agreed and fully endorsed by all members through a vote

The Section Committee will now meet to formulate a plan to action these four Motions. All members will be kept informed of these deliberations as they progress.

Regards,

Section Committee

From: SIPTU <Section.Committee@dcu.ie> Date: 21 November 2008 12:28:10 GMT To: $dcustaff <dcustaff@list.dcu.ie> Cc: "ed >> SIPTU Education Branch" <educationbr@siptu.ie> Subject: [DCUstaff]Results of Ballot

Dear SIPTU Members,

The Motions were carried as follows:

Motion 1: Yes: 83%, No: 17% MOTION CARRIED

Motion 2: Yes: 90%, No: 10% MOTION CARRIED

Motion 3: Yes: 55%, No: 45% MOTION CARRIED

Motion 4: Yes: 83%, No: 17% MOTION CARRIED

Regards,

Section Committee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.93.253 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing editing of section Controversy

Some months ago I edited this article, as I thought that some silly disputes were being reflected in the editing and counter-editing: see comments above. I have just come back to the article and found that one contributor, 'Academicland', has been adding lots and lots of stuff about recent litigation and related matters. I suspect that 'Academicland' is one of the litigants, and this has coloured both the motivation and the content. As it stood, after his editing about half of the article was about these disputes, which is a gross distortion. There are some critics of von Prondzynski (and I would have had some sympathy for some of these in the past), but within DCU (where I work) the balance of opinion on him is probably positive, and he is seen in particular as having successfully steered the university through some very tricky times.

I do think it is right that the controversies are mentioned, but it needs to be kept in perspective. There has been far more litigation in other universities, without that getting any mention at all in Wikipedia. I don't think this Wikipedia entry should be used as a private vehicle for what are essentially personal attacks.

I have also removed some clearly tendentious and possibly libellous comments.

DCU staff member, July 2009.

Thanks for the redaction. Yes, there is a pattern of back-and-forth biased editing (it is not just critics of the subject, or litigants, there is also suspicious editing the other way, cutting too much, for example), with occasional intervention by neutral parties. Of the latest edits, some restored previously removed content (some referenced, though some stretched beyond the citation), and some added unacceptable and unjustifiable interference to the personal part of the article. SeoR (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And again. I was only checking in briefly, and have not time right now to check the "big edit" but have reverted the rest, and will be back. Further edits trying to imply something strange about the arrival of a family in Ireland ("for reasons unknown", "fled") will be removed. Whatever the issues, and relevant scale of mention, of two HR disputes, and more general inside-DCU wrangling over tenure and staff policy, personal matters should be left out. This also inlcudes attempts to attribute actions of various bodies (Statutes are not implemented by decree, for example, but by committees) to one person. SeoR (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

SeoR, I am afraid you are somewhat mistaken about the statutes. They were put to the Governing Authority by the President for their consideration and not the other way round. They were not generated by the governing authority or any other committee but by the presidents and secretary's office. There is a 'closed shop' at DCU which basically means management and the union have a collective bargaining agreement. The drafting and wording of the statute was not agreed by the Union despite the 'closed shop' arrangement and hence the decision by the Union to refer it to the Labour Commission and later tfe Labour Court in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.32.14 (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

....The information on this entry is becoming more and more accurate with every edit. The 'suspicious' editing referred to above of cutting too much information from the record is regrettable and seems to be a concerted effort by some to conceal the truth. The omission of certain controversies associated with Von P and his Presidency are not justified when it is claimed that it was the University rather than the president who was responsible for any litigation. He is the CEO and President and any litigation in the name of the university is at his behest as the CEO and as such he must take full responsibility for any action taken in the name of the University (e.g., the dubious assertion that he was not responsible for the introduction of the Statutes is patently ludicrous) Academictenure (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The value of this article is more and more doubtful. It has been more and more distorted by a campaign conducted, probably, by a litigant or two litigants, under which highly dubious, tendentious and often inaccurate or libellous statements are added to the entry. This process takes place several times a day. Statements used often involve innuendo and gossip, none of which is accurate and is clearly intended as an exercise in character assassination.

It is no doubt right that there can be some reference to litigation and the like, but it needs to be seen in context: DCU has had far less of this than almost any other college in Ireland. In fact, there have only been two cases.

Can I suggest that serious consideration be given to stopping all editing on this page, until this campaign is over.

this of course is utter nonsense as DCU has been involved in far more litigation relative to its size and staff population (Academicland (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)).

Groschowitz, 19.07.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groschowitz (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To academicland / academictenure, all I can say is to stop it. The matters you keep introducing might be worthy of more space in the DCU artcle, but definitely not here. And anything you say has to be judged in part against your broader behaviour, including editing in innuendo about the subject's family. The leader of the university has some personal responsibility but cannot be marked for life by every case at his institution, and indeed, DCU has not had some many trips to the courts or employment authorities.

this of course is again utter nonsense as DCU has been involved in far more serious litigation relative to its size and staff population. There is only some information in the public domain but there are many other instances of litigation that have been settled before heading to the courts. The important point here is the president as CEO is responsible for all litigation on behalf of the university and his decision to appeal in every case must be held accountable (Academicland (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

To Groschowitz, you are over-asserting. Thanks to the Wikipedia community, the article has grown, and the excessive editing by one party has been curbed, with any value he/ she has added taken on board. However, the rest of your points about those edits are fair, which is why they have been addressed by many hands. An edit block / protection is not justified but if silly edits by one party continue, I would certainly suggest he / she is referred to the appropriate people.

93.74.6.159 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To Groschowitz, I don't know who you are or where you get your information from but it is clear it's pretty inaccurate and biased towards one of the litigants. The balance and accuracy of this article has improved greatly due to the edits of many and is no longer an advertisement for one of the litigants, ie the president (Academicland (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)).

Head-to-head discussion of Controvery section

Von Prondzynski has never been a litigant - only the university has. That is a vital distinction, which is why so much of this material is inappropriate here.

I have (repeatedly) removed the reference to what 'Academicland' keeps labelling a 'sexual discrimination' case, and perhaps this needs to be explained. First,. that statutory term is 'sex discrimination', which I am sure Academicland knows. By labelling it as he does he is making an innuendo which is unacceptable. Secondly, the case was constructed around the requirements imposed on a female applicant for promotion. The procedures challenged in the case did not involve the president, and it is therefore totally inappropriate to include the case here. He was a witness at the Labour Court hearing, but only in the sense that he claimed that as president he was wholly committed to equal opportunity. Therefore this case is totally irrelevant here, particularly in the context os the article. Its inclusion is wholly malicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groschowitz (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To Groschowitz. The president is of course a 'litigant' as it is he and only he who has the authority as CEO to instruct the University lawyers to pursue any appeal or defend any litigation against them. He is also solely accountable for the decision to appeal any case and the ensuing legal fees borne by the university in pursuing these matters. To suggest otherwise is misleading at best and certainly suggests that Groschowitz is doing his very best to defend his 'polish' alter ego. The decision to appeal the Horgan case over the alleged gender discrimination on promotion procedures was made by the president and he alone is responsible for the appeal irrespective of whether he gave evidence or not at the hearing. In this case, he did give relevant evidence and to suggest that it was irrelevant is to make a nonsense of the word 'relevant'. Ms Horgan claimed she was discriminated against at all stages of the selection process after she applied for the job in April 2001 simply because she is a woman. The court found she was "on paper the most qualified of the interviewees". The court dismissed DCU's appeal. It said the university "had not discharged the onus on it to prove that, on the balance of probabilities" the failure to promote Ms Horgan was "in no way tainted by discrimination, whether conscious or unconscious" (Academicland (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicland (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have no conflict of interest whatsoever bar knowing when its looks like a rat, smells like a rat and walks like a rat...it's a RAT.

Many academics in Ireland are appalled at the behaviour of this president and are outraged that wikipedia would countenance such overt 'conflict of interest'

The edits made by Groschowitz are highly suspect given he is probably Ferdinand Von P as a quick perusal of his contributions clearly reveals !!! From editing this article, the DCU article, the A fine Frenzy article (VonP's fav band) and of course the Knockdrin Castle (His family home) article !

And finally Ferdinand Von P's home town is Groschowitz ! Excerpt from his blog - A little family History !

http://universitydiary.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/a-little-family-history/ Von P states ". When we actually made it there – the town where he was born and raised is called Groszowice, or Groschowitz in German – my sons almost immediately lost interest (partly because we got there in foul weather), but totally unexpectedly I found myself emotionally engaged. Seeing his old family home (still intact but with new owners who kindly let me in), and suddenly recognising places and scenes from his descriptions that I had, after all, stored away in my memory had a profound effect on me. This was reinforced even further when some local people, who had heard I was there, stopped me in the street and assured me how important my family connection was with the town. And finally, in the pouring rain an elderly lady who remembered my father as a boy showed me the small square which, until the 1950s, had been named after my great grandfather, an association the town council was hoping to re-establish (but a petition for which I gently declined to sign). The lady told me, as I left, that they considered me as the town’s most celebrated living son, which while absurd at one level left me speechless"(Academicland (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)).

To Groschowitz (aka Ferdinand): The election was cancelled by the president days before voting when no other male candidate had declared their candidacy; a member of the Governing Authority requested clarification from the Prondzynski and/or the Sec of the University in open correspondence with all staff whether the professor was the only male candidate nominated. Von P refused to answer the question. A member of Executive miraculously appeared on the reconvened election ballot some nine months later. When clarifiaction was requested under FOI form the university secretary, the university refused to divulge who were the original candidates nominated.

From: Billy Kelly <william.kelly@dcu.ie> Date: 22 March 2007 18:43:22 GMT To: Marnie Holborow <marnie.holborow@dcu.ie> Cc: Ferdinand von Prondzynski <F.von-Prondzynski@dcu.ie>, dcustaff@list.dcu.ie Subject: Re: [DCUstaff]Executive elections

Dear Ferdinand,

I write this as a member of staff who has never met or spoken with Professor Cahill but would support his right to stand and be elected if he fulfils the conditions laid down at the time the process was announced. I wish to endorse Marnie’s view that the introduction of restrictions at this stage of this process is fundamentally wrong. Any democratic process leaves open the chance that one of us won't like the outcome but that's the price we have to pay for that process.

Can you – or the Secretary – confirm that Professor Cahill was the only male candidate nominated by the closing date? If this is the case, any reading of electoral rules would deem him elected and therefore a decision on your part to postpone elections is moot. The judgement of the High Court has not left any doubt as to Professor Cahill’s current status as a full-time member of staff and thus his eligibility to stand for Executive. Whether the Supreme Court will vindicate your belief that Professor Cahill is not a member of staff should not be of relevance at this time.

Your concerns on the issue of vested interest on the part of Professor Cahill is only of relevance if Executive has and will be asked to make decisions about his status and any related legal proceedings. In any event, if vested interests in the decisions of Executive were to be grounds for exclusion, would any member of Executive be left standing?

But this is about much more than just one person on Executive. What message does your exclusion of Professor Cahill from Executive send out about DCU? What does it say about DCU's commitment to tolerance, respect and diversity of opinion and its capacity to deliver on these values?

I would urge you to re-consider this matter.

Billy Kelly

The genuine appearance of manipulation of the election by the president and secretary of the university is what was at issue here, as many staff at the college duly noted. For Groschowitz to suggest the edit was 'outrageous' is indicative of a person in denial (Academictenure (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

---

Dear Academicland/Academic tenure. This was the response to the email you cite above:

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:32:40 +0000

From: Ferdinand von Prondzynski <F.von-Prondzynski@dcu.ie>

To: Billy Kelly <william.kelly@dcu.ie>

Subject: Re: [DCUstaff]Executive elections

He was not the only candidate.

Ferdinand

Furthermore, on 20 September 2007 von Prondzynski wrote to 'Academicland' indicating that he did not feel that additional candidates should be allowed. In any case, no new candidates were included: the two candidates (i.e. Paul Cahill and Paul Smith) had both been nominated by the original deadline before the elections were postponed. The successful candidate, Paul Smith, is the University's Equality Director. He is not a member of the management team, and never has been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groschowitz (talk • contribs) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Groschowitz, from the evidence in the news article and now these revelations about the elections, it seems clear there was some concerted effort on your behalf to prevent the election from taking place in March which alone is worrying. This should be reflected in the article about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.93.253 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

---

It's been a few weeks since I last looked at this page, and since then there has been more frantic editing by Groschowitz and Academicland. For what it's worth, I think Academicland is right about Groschowitz's identity (or at least it's a family member). However, Academicland is also almost certainly one of the litigants, and therefore is not a detached editor, and some of his revisions have also been highly suspect.

I've looked a little at the background stuff. In FVP's time as DCU president, there has been one court case and two tribunal cases. Set against the third level sector's record, that's very little. I've now checked two other colleges, and both have more than three times that over the same period. It's therefore doubtful to characterise this period as litigation-heavy. However, the litigation there has been has been highly charged, and in Cahill's case has raised very important issues that could have long-term implications: and I think that this is how the article should be focused, rather than suggesting that FVP is litigation-mad. I also think there is too much detail in the controversy section, possibly depriving the article of balance.

In DCU, many would be watching the litigation with nervousness, given the wide ramifications, but that doesn't mean (as some edits have suggested) that FVP is seen as bad or outrageous. The Irish Times article is quite correct: most people like him personally. Apart from these cases, he is thought to have advanced the cause of DCU considerably, and has been a success. He has clearly raised the profile of DCU enormously. In relation to the controversies, most people would be more sceptical of him, but without the kind of personal hostility suggested by the edits.

I would agree with Groschowitz about the status of the person elected in the postponed Executive elections. Nobody in DCU would regard him as a member of FVP's 'kitchen cabinet.' It was also well known before the original deadline that he was a candidate.

Overall I have tried to edit all this to make it both accurate and balanced and in proportion.

Could I suggest to Groschowitz and Academicland that they lay off the editing for now, and let this be done by those without a vested interest.

DCU staff member, July 2009.

PS. I have re-ordered the controversy section and tried to apply a balanced tone. However I am not wholly convinced that this much detail is appropriate in this article; much of this is really about DCU rather than FVP, and would be better placed there, with just a cross reference from the FVP article. But I was reluctant to apply that here. I still think it would be more balanced, however. FVP has lived for 55 years, and this article suggests that all this controversy is about one-third of his life and work. That is clearly not the case, though no doubt to the litigants it seems otherwise. Something for someone else to ponder. 89.204.186.233 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.186.233 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also very familiar with the issues at play at DCU. Your edits are not balanced as they do not present an accurate account of what has gone on during his presidency. The detail is certainly required in this instance because Von P is the CEO of the university and it is his decisions and judgement alone that have proven controversial, not the 'amorphous' excuse that he now puts forward, namely it was done in the name of 'the university'. His penchant for getting involved in any industrial relations process at the university is cited earlier (penned by himself no doubt) and of course, the controversy has stemmed directly from this.

I agree with the point raised earlier about the extraordinary way wikipedia allows such conflict of interest to reign in this instance. Groschowitz wrote the original article about himself (or a family member) and has edited it profusely since he posted it in an attempt to spin a way out of the poor decisions he has personally made at the college. You may think that the amount of litigation around the president is minimal. DCU is a small college with much fewer staff yet the decision of Von P to fight his colleagues in both the civil and labour courts speaks volumes about his legacy as president. Not alone the cost of such litigation. During his presidency, there has been fundamental issues litigated by him against staff. No university president has been so personally involved in litigation at their respective colleges. He has been central to the three cases, and as an authority in labour law he knows more than most what is at stake in these cases. This is also why a vote of censure and no confidence in his presidency was passed by the majority of staff who bothered to vote; a first for any Irish university president.

I agree Von P is not litigation mad, but has chosen to litigate two test cases, in particular that seek to remove academic freedom and tenure from the DCU lexicon. A worthy note for his epitaph at DCU, I contend, all based on his academic background in labour law.

While I respect your supportive view of his presidency as a fellow member of staff, far more voices were heard when staff voted censure and no confidence in his presidency and management at the university. As for the proposed 'kitchen cabinet' comment, this is an accurate representation of the Equality Officer who was appointed by the president and had held a position of executive previously.

DCU Academic Staff, July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academictenure (talk • contribs) 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To 89.204.186.233

The 'kitchen cabinet" candidate never declared his nomination for the original election. So how you can say that it was well known, defeats me ! He did declare his candidacy for the reconvened election nine months later and actively lobbied staff for a vote....seems strange ..huh ! The fact that the Secretary of the University refused under FOI to release the names of the original nominees speaks volumes about the management under Von P (Academicland (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)).

To do's

• Hobbies and interests, at least serious ones like his (published) photography?
• Most importantly, he is a senior academic, not some admin, where is the detail of papers, conferences and general publications, such as one of the main books on Irish employment law, I think..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.6.159 (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuous attacks on the subject of this article

---

Over recent weeks there has been regular editing of the 'controversy' section in this article by person or persons with a clear vested interest, and with major exaggerations, inaccuracies and innuendos. The editors use Phoenix as a source reference - this is a fortnightly gossip magazine known for its less than accurate reports. That is not a criticism, as its purpose is to push the boundaries, but it makes it wholly unreliable as a source. The article used here is totally inaccurate in many of its claims. Other aspects of the editing include claims that the von P was the subject of a no-confidence motion b because of the litigation. First, the motion was totally unrelated to an y litigation; secondly, it was not a no-confidence motion as such, but related to one specific aspect of industrial relations; and thirdly, it was narrowly passed by a very small number of voters - those supporting the motion accounted for less than 5 per cent of the university's staff. These edits are tendentious and self-serving, and leave out the wholly damning criticism of the litigants by the tribunal and court concerned.

Overall, however, the chief issue is that all this detail is out of all proportion to the issues covered, in the context of the overall role of von P as President of DCU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.235.248 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Self Interest and aggrandisement - I think it is a bit rich to be claiming 'vested' interest when this wiki page was started by you about you and continues to be edited by you. In response to the aforementioned claims about Phoenix magazine as an unreliable source, Von P wrote to the Editors of Phoenix with his letter published and never challenged any of the facts in the article bar a minor error about DCU ranking internationally. The same criticisms of him were raised in several articles published around the same time in the Irish Independent, The Sunday Independent, The Sunday Tribune, The Irish Daily Mail, The Sunday Times and the Evening Herald. So there is no question of exaggeration or inaccuracies and innuendos.

The question of the vote of No confidence in him and his management team has been addressed before in the Talk section. There is no question that von P was the subject of a confidence vote and lost it (irrespective of the turnout). The Motion was as follows:

Motion of Censure and NO confidence in the senior management of the University.

The cause of the vote is clear. The use of Statute 3 on suspension and dismissal to dismiss academic staff (about which there was ongoing litigation) without cause. The three accompanying Motions which were also passed clearly gives context to the vote of confidence in him and his management team. Motions on summary dismissal, academic freedom and tenure and natural justice all passed and were also the grounds on which the university lost their case in the High Court. To diminish the outcome of the vote by questioning the turnout is undemocratic and problematic as one could equally argue that the majority of staff did not vote NO to the motion and therefore declare confidence in him.

While there was some criticism of the plaintiffs in each case, it was clearly not wholly damning as they won and were awarded substantial compensation and full costs. Substantial damages and further litigation and defamation proceedings are on the horizon and will no doubt result in further costs for the university as a result of his actions while president (EditorIre (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)).

Biographies of Living Persons- Conflict of Interest

As the popularity of Wiki has grown, several issues have become more prominent: Many people now create articles about themselves that are overly promotional in tone and are deliberately inaccurate. These are not neutral, and have no place in Wiki projects. This Wiki page is a case in point. Generally, the Wiki community protects these projects against this common problem by deleting or improving such hagiographies. Many editors have attempted to perform these duties for this page on Prondzynski by editing the project to reflect the facts accurately in a balanced manner with appropriate, verifiable, independent and reliable sources included (others have used it inappropriately without verifiable sources of any kind).

The persistent reversal of edits of the ‘controversy’ section claiming apparent vandalism inaccurate, deliberate and malicious edits is unwarranted when the edits are appropriately sourced, verifiable and correctly cited in text. It is particularly uncalled for coming from person(s) who created the page initially under ‘Groschowitz’ about himself (or relative) and then continues to edit and reverse other edits that he deems critical in nature using IP’s from Robert Gordon University (RGU), his current employer.

May I suggest that the person editing from RGU refrain from editing his Wiki page and let the Wiki community protect this project against this common problem of self aggrandisement and thereby ensure a neutral properly sourced account of the facts (84.203.45.211 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)).

Ferdinand von Prondzynski - reliable sources

The claim by Demiurge that the source of a Vote of No confidence in von Prondzynski is weak needs to be revisited. I think Demiurge will find that the record clearly shows such a vote of NO confidence was passed in him and his management team by staff at the college. You should undo the edit you made in a timely manner.

(cur | prev) 02:31, 19 August 2011 Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs) (18,531 bytes) (→Controversy: rmv disputed information supported only by a weak source, per WP:BLP)

Here are further sources;

1. The two UNION (SIPTU) emails informing all staff at DCU of the Motions and the result.

2. Phoenix Magazine - December issue, 2009. 'Affairs of the Nation - DCU's President Ferdinand von Prondzynski'

........." Such is the level of antagonism between von Prondzynski and the staff on this issue that last year SIPTU held a secret ballot which resulted in a motion of No confidence in the president being passed by 55% to 45%. Essentially SIPTU claims that the contentious statute allows the university to fire staff at minimal notice and this is an abuse of natural justice. Ironically, in his early years as an industrial relations lecturer in Trinity College in the 1980’s, VP was considered somewhere to the left of Karl Marx on trade union matters and earned himself the moniker ‘the Red Baron’ "........

3. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6689569.ece

....defending the decision to appeal the Cahill case to the Supreme Court, he added: “The university took the view that the High Court case raised issues appropriate for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is not particularly costly, while being important in order to present us with legal clarity.” Other university sources, however, are unhappy at the amount of money spent. Last November, Siptu staff voted no confidence in DCU management over an alleged failure to develop suitable dismissal procedures....

4. The DCU Award winning Student newspaper - The College View -

http://www.thecollegeview.com/2008/12/14/no-confidence-motion-passed-on-college-bosses/

5. Reputable Irish Education Blog site - Ninth level Ireland, edited by Steve Hedley, UCC

http://9thlevel.ie/2008/12/03/ballot-of-staff-at-dublin-city-university-vote-no-confidence-in-the-president-of-the-university/>

I will reply on the talk page for the article, as it makes little sense to be having this discussion on my talk page, since it's already in at least three other venues. I've blanked the internal university email, because it's not a good idea to be pasting emails complete with people's email addresses on Wikipedia talk pages. (And a copy-paste of an email is not an independent reliable source anyway.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The e-mails at least give context and of course are the official source of confirmation of the vote. It was copy pasted from the talk page of the article and is fully verifiable if required. The question here has already been clearly addressed in the Talk page above. There is no question that von P was the subject of a confidence vote and lost it (irrespective of the turnout). The cause of the vote is also clear; The use of Statute 3 on suspension and dismissal to dismiss academic staff (about which there was ongoing litigation) without cause. The three accompanying Motions which were also passed on the same day clearly gives context to the vote of confidence in the president and his management team. Motions on summary dismissal, academic freedom and tenure and natural justice all passed and were also importantly the grounds on which the university lost their case in the High Court and on natural justice in the Supreme Court. As has been said before, to diminish the outcome a vote by questioning the turnout is undemocratic and problematic as one could equally argue that the majority of staff did not vote against the no confidence motion proposed and therefore failed to declare confidence in him (EditorIre (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

1. Further up this talk page, someone claiming to be a member of staff at the university, claims that he has the full text of the SIPTU motions in front of him, and that they do not include a vote of no confidence in the President. Meanwhile, you claim that the email you're pasting is the motions as passed, and it does include a vote of no confidence in the President. This is why we don't base contentious information in a WP:BLP article on primary sources that cannot be independently verified in reliable sources. And it's why the email you keep pasting, does not constitute such independent verification.
2. The Phoenix (magazine) is, according to Wikipedia, a "news and satire magazine, inspired by the British magazine Private Eye". Concensus at WP:RSN is that we should avoid using such publications as the principal sourcing for contentious statements about living persons.
3. The Times is considered a reliable source, including for material of this nature. Its article, as linked, specifically does not state that the vote of no confidence was against the President; it says that "Siptu staff voted no confidence in DCU management". Moreover, the article in the Times goes to some lengths to provide a balanced view of the dispute; it focuses very little on von Prondzynski, instead covering the issues as being a problem for the university as a whole, and even quotes the general secretary of the Irish Federation of University Teachers as saying that the same problem of over-expenditure on legal cases is seen across all universities, not even specific to DCU. This certainly does not support the tone or focus of the "controversy" section in this article on von Prondzynski, even after my removal of the disputed half-sentence.
4. I don't believe a student newspaper - award-winning or otherwise - can be viewed as a strong reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy such as would be required for contentious claims about a living person, especially since student newspaper editorial positions would change from year to year.
5. A Wordpress blog isn't such a source either. Looking at its front page, its main activity seems to be quoting short sections of news stories then linking to them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The evidence for a Vote of No confidence is substantial :-

1. A copy of the Motion that called for a vote of No confidence in the management of the University - that includes the President and Secretary. To state otherwise is surprising and shows a complete lack of understanding of the management structure of the university.
2. The Phoenix magazine article irrespective of whether satirical or not confirms the vote of no confidence.
3. The Sunday Times article confirms the vote of no confidence in the management of the university. It states that "Siptu staff voted no confidence in DCU management". Who do you think management of the university are ?
4. The Student newspaper article confirms the vote no confidence in the management of the university -
5. The reputable Wordpress blog confirms the vote of no confidence in the management of the university -

The evidence against a vote of no confidence is non-verfiable :-

1. The evidence against the existence of such a vote of confidence is someone claiming to be a member of staff at the university, most probably von Prondyznski himself who has the full text of the SIPTU motions in front of him (although not presented), and claims they do not include a vote of no confidence in the President.

Demiurge1000, you seem to be favoring the evidence that has no verifiable sources... why would you do that  ? (DcuStaff (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC))

My purpose here is not to assess, based on the balance of probabilities and the available evidence, the likely Truth(tm) of whether a particular event did or did not occur. It is emphatically not a case of stacking up the sources for "your version of events" on the one side, and the sources for "his version of events" on the other. Rather, my purpose is to assess whether there are sufficient strong reliable sources to justify the inclusion in this article of a disputed, and strongly negative statement about a living person. That is required by Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy; and, based on the sources presented so far, that decision is very easy.

The Times article on its own is sufficient to establish that a vote of no confidence in the management was successful, so there would be no problem with adding a conservatively worded statement in this article, to the effect that the disagreements at the university during the time that von Prondzynksi was President, did lead to that vote. But, according to that Times article, it was a vote of no confidence in the management, not in him individually. And it should be accompanied by mention of the university's justification for its policy, and the discussion of the policy being shared by many other institutions, which are also contained in that article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clear the source(s) in favor of including a statement about this unprecedented vote of no confidence in his management team are overwhelmingly. The original statement in the controversy section was as follows: " Unique for a President of an Irish university there was an unprecedented vote of no confidence passed against him and his management team during his term of office as a direct result of the controversy surrounding the introduction of Statutes on suspension and dismissal of staff and the litigation in the Labour Court, High Court and Supreme Court".

Since he as president and CEO of the university heads up the management team, it is correct to state that the wording of the vote of confidence was not exclusively in him, but in him it was without question as head of the management team and CEO of the university.

The request that the statement on the vote of confidence can be accompanied by mention of the university's justification of its policy (attributed to von Prondzynski in the ST article) can be included. However it should NOT state that the policy is shared by many other institutions as this claim is unwarranted as it is wholly inaccurate to state that the policy of summary dismissal without cause as envisaged with Statute 3 is shared by other institutions in Ireland.

May I suggest the following wording. " Unique for a President of an Irish university there was a vote of no confidence passed against his management team during his term of office as a direct result of the controversy surrounding the introduction of Statutes on suspension and dismissal of staff and the litigation in the Labour Court, High Court and Supreme Court. The university under his leadership defended its decision to appeal each case as they raised issues that required legal clarity following the enactment of the University's Act, 1997 ” (DcuStaff (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

I've been watching the editing of this article with some interest, because much of it is so bizarre. The first point to make is that the 'Controversy' section is simply too big in the overall context. Ferdinand von Prondzynski is well known in Ireland, and known for various initiatives and his extensive commentary (admittedly some if it fairly banal), and to allow these two (or three) cases to take up so much space distorts the article. It's clear enough that these cases caused public comment, but probably less for their content than for the media campaigns involved; and these were more about the various blogs were published than anything else. So I think it all needs to be kept in proportion.

The controversy section reflects the amount of serious litigation generated by the subject and would be considered on the high side for Irish university presidents (reforming or otherwise).DcuStaff (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the cases caused public comment, probably less for their content than for the media campaigns involved is very surprising since the person most quoted in all press articles that I have read and in the wider media comment about the various cases was the subject of the wiki page, von Prondzynski himself, who has orchestrated a media campaign to redeem his reputation since these cases first arose DcuStaff (talk)

You have previously claimed in your contributions "that both litigants were widely discredited at the university" yet you have offered no verifiable source for such a defamatory statement and the mere fact that all cases were lost by the university at the original hearings and further lost after several appeals by the university would surely suggest to anyone, not least yourself, if anyone was discredited it was the former president and not the senior staff involved.DcuStaff (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, the use made by editors here of sources is often highly questionable. Phoenix should never be used to source biographical content. The article in the "Mail" is actually largely complimentary of von Prondzynski. Other sources are taken totally out of context.

Reference to the high profile litigtion and the former president's handling of it has been the subject of several articles in the press, notably in both satirical and mainstream newspapers (Phoenix, Mail, Herald and the Sunday Independent). The reason for the notoriety is that the former president gave conflicting oral evidence in all three cases and this evidence was central to the university's case in two of them.DcuStaff (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'no confidence' motion references here are highly questionable: there is absolutely no reference in the motion to von Prondzynski, and no reference, express or implied, to any litigation.

The no confidence motion was in the president and his management team for their handling of the introduction of statutes on suspension and dismissal of stawe. The motion was presented to staff while the university was involved in ongoing serious litigation on the statutes and suspension and dismissal of staff. To state otherwise is ignoring the reality. It is obvious from the reports that the majority of staff who voted, clearly voted no confidence in the management of the university (a pretty serious indictment of the former president). Furthermore, the majority of the staff didn't vote any confidence in him or his management team as they never voted to reject the motion.DcuStaff (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Like all of these 'reforming' presidents von Prondzynski merits some real analysis, and much could be criticized. But the editing here seems to be ad hominem and personal. This article should be watched closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.113.72 (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

it is my view that you are may well be the subject of the article or a close friend/relative and are keen understandably to make sure that the wiki page (which was also apparently started by the subject or a close friend/relative) describes the former president in a more than favorable light.; however, it is important that the article on the learned gentleman is balanced.DcuStaff (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Spelling and pronunciation

I have often seen Wikipedia give Phonetic Alphabet spellings, can this be done here? And is it von P or Von P, I've seen both?79.104.4.202 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced and original research information

I've made and will make several edits to comb through this article for issues. There are several issues with this sounding like a promotional piece and often WP:SYNTH violations by citing that the subject of this article has published an article or book therefore they are an authority. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)