From the ‘Vine 11, October 12, 1998
THE REORGANIZATION BLUES
This issue of the ‘Vine presents more information regarding
our district’s infamous July, 1997, “reorganization.” Trustee Lang, in his
depositions of January and February ’98 excerpted here, explains that, in the
months preceding the July meeting, the issue of eliminating the “chair” model
at IVC in favor of the “dean” model had not been discussed by the trustees and
that the body had neither authorized nor accepted studies or materials from
staff, including administration, regarding that kind of administrative change.
But, as we saw in the last issue of the ‘Vine, according to
former VP Bob Loeffler, “In May of 1997, during an executive meeting of the
three Vice Presidents and interim President Mathur, Mathur directed Vice
President Burgess to develop a plan for the reorganization of the
administrative structure of the college.” According to Loeffler, “Mathur stated
that he wanted Vice President Burgess to develop a plan to institute a ‘Dean
Model’ for the College.” Further, “Mathur directed…Burgess to calculate the
cost attendant to a Four-Dean Model and a Five-Dean Model as compared to the
costs associated with the Chair Model.” I have included the actual report of
the latter calculations in the pages that follow. They do not seem to support
Mr. Williams claim, made two months later, that the elimination of the chair
model would save the district $600,000. Quite the contrary.
When Burgess, then the VP of Instruction, was given these
instructions, he naturally proceeded to discuss the matter with Instructional
Council at the first opportuntiy, May 13. The IC unanimously recommended that
the planning process to develop and implement this kind of massive
reorganization be put off until the fall, when consultation with faculty,
students, et al., would be possible.
Mathur responded to the situation by endorsing the
recommendation—deceptively, it seems—and then issuing Burgess a formal
reprimand for failing to keep the “Dean Model” business confidential, among
other sins. I have included the reprimand letter in this issue. (Later, Mathur
was compelled to withdraw the reprimand, owing in part to his failure to grasp
the facts of Burgess’ conduct.)
As we saw in the last issue, the reorganization that was
adopted on July 16 was one of the plans that Burgess had developed at Mathur’s
direction. How, one might ask, does that fact square with the fact, noted by
Lang, that the board never authorized a study of administrative changes of this
kind? Inquiring minds want to know.
As Lang explains, the first he heard about the elimination
of the Chair Model in favor of the Dean Model was Williams’ notorious July 11
memo, in which he explains that the “performance of some chairs has fallen
short of the expectations for their position.” (Translation: the goddam chairs
won’t stop complaining about us.) I have included that letter, here, too.
Clearly, there’s a weasel in the woodpile.
LANG’S DEPOSITION: EXCERPTS
The man
asking the questions is attorney Bill Shaeffer. Dave Lang, of course, is the
witness. The district’s Spencer Covert is Lang’s counsel. Wendy P and Roy B
were present. --The editor.
Q …to your
knowledge, did you receive any documents from the district or other board
members prior to the board meeting on July 14, 1997 regarding a reorganization
or a change from the…chair to the dean models other than Mr. Williams’ memo?
A Not to my
recollection.
Q And I take it
if you had received such information, you would have produced it?
A Correct.
Q Prior to your
receipt of this July 11, 1997 letter, had you discussed with any other board
member the pros and cons of a dean model as opposed to a chair model?
A As I said
earlier, the only person that I might have had a conversation with about this
was Trustee Heuter, to the best of my recollection.
Q Prior to July
14, 1997, were there any other board meetings at which time the topic of
replacing the chair model with the dean model was discussed?
A Not to my
recollection.
Q Prior to July
11, 1997, had you received any written materials from the district staff
regarding the pros and cons of a dean or department chair model?
A Not to the
best of my recollection.
Q Prior to July
11, 1997, had any district staff member made a presentation to the board or
individual board members regarding the merits of lack of merits of a dean and
department chair model?
A No, none that
I recall.
…..
Q …Now, prior
to July 11, 1997, had the faculty presented to the board their observations or
desires regarding a dean or a department chair model?
A No. That was
one of my objections to…the action that was taken…I felt that we—the board—did
not have enough input from other shared-governance groups.
Q And who would
those shared-governance groups be?
Q It would
certainly include the faculty; certainly include the Senate, Academic Senate;
input from Associated Student Government.
Q Anyone else?
A Faculty
Association.
Q Why do you
believe that these entities or groups were excluded from the decision process?
MR COVERT: Objection. Calls for his mental process and is
irrelevant and immaterial. I instruct the witness not to answer.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: Well, as of July 11, 1997, why do you
believe these various groups were exluded from the decision process?
MR COVERT:
Same objection. [I] instruct the witness not to answer.
Q Did you
attend any board meeting where the faculty or faculty representatives presented
their view on the dean and department chair models prior to July 16, 1997?
A No.
Q Did you
receive any correspondence from the district which included or outlined the
views on the dean and chair models as presented by the faculty?…
A No.
Q Prior to July
16, 1997, did you receive any correspondence from the district, including its
staff and faculty, which represented or summarized the viewpoints of the
Academic Senate?
A No.
Q Who do you
believe was the primary advocate of the department chair model?
MR. COVERT:
Objection. Calls for his mental process. I instruct the witness not to answer
because it’s irrelevant and immaterial.
Q by MR. SHAEFFER: Has anyone told you who the primary
advocate is for the change from the chair model to the dean model?
A No.
Q Prior to July
16, 1997, did you attend any board meeting at which time the board authorized
the staff to prepare a study comparing the pros and cons of a dean model?
A No.
Q Prior to July
16, 1997, had you received any correspondence or any documentation explaining a
proposed dean model?
A Other than
this letter?
Q Correct.
A No.
Q Prior to July
16, 1997, did the board authorize any type of study to determine what type of
personnel assignments or changes would be necessary to implement a dean model?
A No. The board
as a whole didn’t. It took no such action.
Q I take it you
never participated in those types of activities?
A Right. The
board as a whole did not authorize any such study.
Q When were you
first advised that a dean model, as opposed to a chair model, was supported by
one or more board members?
A This letter
would have really been the first indication of that that I would have received.
Q Prior to July
11, 1997, do you know what the state of the chair model or chair proposal was?
MR. COVERT: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
THE
WITNESS: Yeah, I need you to be a little bit more explicit.
Q …Prior to you
receipt of this July 11, 1997 memo, did you have any information which
generally described how the dean model would be implemented at your college?
A No. At Irvine
Valley College, actually, I represent the district, so…
Q Well, the
district. Prior to July 11, 1997, did any other board member tell you that they
had been presented with a summary or an outline of what the dean model would
be?
A No.
Q When you
recieved your memo of July 11, 1997 from Mr. Williams, what did you expect
would occur within the district to implement or not implement the dean model?
MR. COVERT: Objection. Irrelevant and immaterial; that inquires
into his mental process and is irrelevant. [I] instruct the witness not to
answer.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: Would you characterize the result of the
July 16, 1997 meeting as a major reorganization of the district?
A Yes.
…..
Q Why did you
believe there was a Brown Act violation on July 16th, 1997[—one] that caused you to leave
the board meeting?
MR. COVERT:
I’m going to instruct the witness not to answer as to anything that was said in
the closed session on July 16th, 1997 as being confidential.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: Do you want me to restate the question?
A No, I
understand the question. I guess what I’m trying to determine is what I can say
in light of my cousel’s recommendation not to divulge discussions that occurred
for the period of time that I was in that meeting.
…..
Q …Now,
independent of whatever was said or done in the closed session on July 16th, 1997, why
do you believe there was a Brown Act violation?
A I believe
that the subject of reorganization is one that should be discussed in a public
meeting rather than a closed session.
…..
Q Do you
believe a majority of the board—comprising Frogue, Williams, Fortune, and
Lorch—had prearranged the vote on the reoganization issue, including its
particulars?
MR. COVERT:
Objection, as it calls for the mental processes of this witness, but you may
answer if you have a belief.
THE
WITNESS: I have no proof that that occurred.
Q All right. Do
you believe it occurred?
MR. COVERT:
Objection; irrelevant and immaterial; also calls for speculation. You can
answer that. I’m making the objection for the record.
THE
WITNESS: I understand. Certainly the memo that was faxed by Trustee Williams on
the 11th dealt with that subject, in my view, in an
inappropriate way. That by itself certainly seems to me to have been a signal
being sent out to all of the trustees. And I think it may be possible that he
spoke with members of the board that he felt closest to relative to this
subject.
…..
Q All right. On
the last page of your September 3rd, ’97 letter, you identify the other board
members. Did you sent a copy of your letter to them?
A (Witness
reviews the document.) I sent a copy to everybody that I cc’d on this list.
Q Did you
receive any verbal or written response from board members Frogue, Williams,
Fortune and/or Lorch as a result of your September 3d, ’97 letter?
A I received no
written responses from the other board members.
Q Did you
receive any verbal comments from them?
A Yes.
Q I take it
they were annoyed?
A I think
that’s a fair assessment.
Q All right.
Now later on in your letter, you state, “Although Mr. Williams preceded his
further discussion of the district and colleges administrative model by naming
certain personnel for reassignment effectively eliminating the chair model that
was in effect at one of the district’s colleges and transferring personnel
within the district and at each college, I believe this action was a thinly
veiled attempt to skirt the Brown Act under the guise of a personnel decision.”
Can you
tell me generally what you are referring to in that comment?
A (Witness
reviews the document.)
MR. COVERT: Again, I would instruct the witness not to
answer with respect to anything occurring in that closed session or any other
closed session.
THE
WITNESS: Okay.
MR. COVERT:
And then, for the record, I would object in that it inquires into the mental
processes of Mr. Lang as a trustee, but you may answer that question.
MR.
SHAEFFER: And just for purposes of this deposition, your counsel is not waiving
the legislative privilege, so—
THE
WITNESS: Okay.
MR. COVERT:
And for the record, so stipulated that we have that understanding.
MR.
SHAEFFER: Right, because that will make it a lot easier when we get into the
next stuff.
THE
WITNESS: My understanding of the Brown Act is that in closed session, the board
can discuss specific personnel matters. However, when it comes to a broad
restructuring of the district, I know of no exception under the Brown Act that
would cover that, which is why I felt that it should have been a matter for
public discussion.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: do you believe a majority of the board
took this closed session approach to avoid the public criticism that was
generated as a result of their July 16th, 1997 action?
MR COVERT:
Objection: irrelevant and immaterial, not designed to lead to the production of
relevant evidence; also calls for speculation.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: You may answer.
A I believe so.
Q You next
state, “None of the appointed administrators nor other shared governance groups
were apparently consulted before actions were taken, resulting in reassignments
and newly delegated responsibilities that made no rational sense.”
Okay. First
of all, what information do you have that formed the basis of your comment that
none of the appointed administrators nor the shared governance groups were
consulted regarding the actions taken?
A It would have
involved conversations with members of administration that were involved in the
development of the model by which the reassignments took place.
Q Can you
explain that more for me? Are you saying that some administrators presented
some proposals to the board?
A No.
Q Okay.
A Um—
MR COVERT:
Objection; there is no question pending.
MR
SHAEFFER: Well, let me have your answer reread.
(Record
read as follows:
“A It would have
involved conversations with members of administration that were involved in the
development of the model by which the reassignments took place.”)
MR. COVERT:
And he answered no.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: So you’re saying that these conversations
occurred after the board action of July 16th, 1997?
A Correct.
Q And in those
conversations, the administrators said, in essence, “This is the action taken
by the board, now these are the problems we’re having implementing this
action”?
A No, not
exactly.
Q Okay. Did
they tell you, “We were not consulted, individually or collectively, by anyone
prior to the board’s action of July 16th, 1997”?
A Okay. Let me
go back. Let me think about this for a minute.
I was again
made aware by a member of the administration that Mr. Mathur had asked for
information about what a dean model at Irvine Valley College might look like
subsequent to the July 16th meeting, and that model
was the one that apparently was adopted by the board majority.
Q When did you
have this conversation with this administrator?
A I don’t
recall the exact date.
Q Was it before
or after July 16th?
A After.
Q And this
administrator told you that he had been contacted by Mr. Mathur and
asked—what?—to prepare a proposed model or what?
A Well, I’m
trying to recall exactly what—how the conversation went. And it was some time
ago. But apparently the model that was adopted or the model that was utlimately
adopted, the dean model at Irvine Valley college and the assigment of
responsibilities that occurred under that model was based on information that
Mr. Mathur received from members of the administration at Irvine Valley Colege.
Q Can you tell
me who the administrator is that told you the board action was based on a model
and assignment that had been prepared by this administrator at the direction of
Mathur?
A I prefer not
to answer that question.
Q All right…Did
you approach this administrator or did the administrator approach you with this
information?
A I
recall—well, to the best of my recollection, it was based on my inquiry, my subsequent
inquiry.
Q All right. So
you negotiated the contact?
A Yes.
Q Why did you
conduct this inquiry?
MR COVERT: Objection; inquires into the mental process as
well as consideration of the thought processes and material considered; I
instruct the witness not to answer.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: Did you—
MR COVERT: Also object on the grounds it’s not designed to
lead to the production of relevant information.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: …When you conducted your inquiries, did
you interview more than one administrator or just one administrator regarding
his or her knowledge of the development of the model and assignment?
MR COVERT: Same instruction.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: All right. You next state, “Further
violations of the Brown Act include discussion of specific agenda items in
closed session that are on the open session calendar.” Was that comment
directed both to the July 16th, 1997 reorganization and the permanent
appointment of Mr. Mathur as IVC president?
…..
A No, I think
that particular phrase was intended to incorporate other discussions that may
have occurred where the board was perhaps not being as circumspect as it should
be in closed session discussions.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: What do you mean by that?
MR. COVERT: Objection; instruct the witness not to answer
based upon the Brown Act privilege.
Q BY MR. SHAEFFER: All right. These concerns you just
mentioned with respect to circumspection, do those apply both to the Mathur
permanent appointment and the July 16th, 1997 reorganization?
A In my
opinion, yes, as I state in my letter.
No comments:
Post a Comment