Board meeting on Monday

Here's my report on the AGENDA for the December 11, 2006, meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees.

CLOSED SESSION (5 p.m.—6 p.m.)

Nothing here jumps out at me. Section A is

1. ...Appointment/Employment
a. Assistant Dean, Student Services, SC

2. ...Evaluation of Performance
a. Chancellor

3. ...Discipline/Dismissal/Release

We're still waiting to hear about the fate of IVC Chief of Police Kreza and his assistant, who were placed on "administrative leave" a couple of months ago. Do you suppose the board will ever tell us what's up? They've really kept a lid on this one. Impressive! Disconcerting!

● Section D concerns litigation:

1. Anticipated Litigation/Significant Exposure to Litigation

2. Initiation of Litigation – Three Cases

Do bear in mind that some agenda items—e.g., the two above—appear repeatedly without yielding reported actions.

OPEN SESSION (6:00 p.m. to—God only knows)


Immediately after public comments, the board will recess (before the public) to its “annual Organizational Meeting.” That's when the trustees elect their officers.

As I have indicated previously, if TOM FUENTES wants to preside over the board during the next year, then the job is likely his for the asking. But I’m told that he does not want it. According to my sources, the AMAZING MUSTACHIOED QUISLING will continue as President of the Board.

As long as it isn’t Fuentes, I’m happy. His contempt for, and distrust of, faculty is palpable. (I've decided to employ understatement for a change.)

The agenda looks pretty light. The Consent Calendar items are 2-17, including

• #2: Saddleback guest lecturer honoraria. ($100 bucks a pop. The trustees control the purse strings! On the other hand, you could probably scrape up a hundred bucks just picking up change around the Saddleback vending machines.)
• #12: approval of the district 2008-2009 Academic Calendar. Snore.
• #16: payment of bills.

For some reason, over five and a half million dollars in checks is listed without description. Aren’t agendas supposed to give the public a heads-up about what the trustees might do? What kind of heads-up is that? Who writes these agendas? Dennis Hastert?

I know, I know. The item is likely a bunch of innocent expenditures. But just how hard is it to write something like, "Several dozen routine expenditures such as XXX"? Mathur is so focussed on pleasing his "bosses" (namely, the trustees) that he does nothing for the poor "taxpayer," who will surely learn little from the above verbiage. It might even make him/her suspicious.

Among the Deputy Chancellor’s items:

• #18: SOCCCD: BOARD POLICY REVISIONS: BP5505: GRADE GRIEVANCE POLICY

It’s just for “review and study.” The Academic Senates seem happy with the changes. The existing policy, which is old, is a potential litigation magnet, among other things. It goes out of its way to invite issues and problems.

• #19: SADDLEBACK COLLEGE: AWARD OF BID: REMEDIATION AND REPAIR OF THE BGS BUILDING

This is for six and a half million dollars. Is it just me or does it seem as though the board has been working on the BGS MOLD project for decades?! Folks in the trenches (er, the fungi) have been grumblin' all the while. Do the trustees care? "Let them eat mushrooms!" they say.

• #20: SOCCCD: BOARD POLICY REVISION: …BP 1600: PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, PB 4056: CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING… Is this good?


VAGUENESS AGAIN

• #21: ACADEMIC PERSONNEL ACTIONS [including]

….Administrator Contract Extension; Additional Compensation: General Fund; Additional Compensation: Categorical/Non-General Fund; Resignation.Retirement/Conclusion of Employment. [My emphasis.]

I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t know what the italicized stuff is about. How vague can you get?

You’ll recall that, recently, Chancellor Mathur tried to sneak his raise through, unnoticed, in this "Academic Personnel Actions" section (see Blow by blow). As I recall, back then, he (or Bob King) used two little words—“additional compensation”—to describe the item. Compensation for whom? How much? How come? When the item's nature was finally revealed (on the day of the board meeting), IVC Academic Senate President Wendy G complained about this connivery, as did some trustees.

In the end, owing mostly to Wagnerian peevitude, King was told to reagendize the COLA item, only properly next time. (No wonder everybody was pissed. Nevertheless, this board stands behind Mathur like George W stands behind his disastrous war.)


My problem is with the vagueness of the agenda. In this instance, as before, you can't tell what this item is about. As near as I can tell, that's illegal.

The Brown Act prohibits (among other things) undue vagueness. Why? —In order to permit genuine HEADS-UPPERY for all the poor taxpayers that Fuentes pretends to care about. (See The Ralph M. Brown Act.) According to the Brown Act,

”…[P]rior to a regular meeting, the [board] must post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item to be discussed or transacted at the meeting…. The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body….” (Brown Act—This link is to a smallish pdf file)

Seems plain enough to me.

You'll recall that the SOCCCD board is notorious for its "persistent and defiant" violations of the Brown Act (seven or eight years ago). You'd think they'd learn. (The most egregious violator back then—Williams—is still on the board.)

Item #23 concerns a Memo of Understanding between the district and the faculty union. Maybe our unionist bretheren and sisteren can tell us what that's about.

At a recent "open forum" with the Chancellor, the fellow seemed to take credit for the faculty contract. (See "A 'thankless job'.") That's rich, boy. He was the reason that negotiations were bogged down for years.

Item #24 concerns the board’s effort to help fix the ROYAL MESS they’ve made of our Study Abroad programs. They’ll change the liability insurance level from the current $50 million (ridiculous! disastrous!) down to “within the limits of $5-10 million per program occurrence,” as per VC Serban’s recent recommendations.

I think the board owes the "taxpayer" a public apology.

At the aforementioned open forum, I complained about the Study Abroad SNAFU. Mathur responded by noting that good things are happening, e.g., this agenda item. Yeah, I said, but what about causing the SNAFU—or, in his case, allowing it to occur—in the first place?

The Chancellor seemed to say that we should focus on the positive, not the negative.

Sometimes, though, negatives are very positive. Imagine the joy in Mudville were Mr. Mathur to resign? As Raghu might put it, it would be a "win-win."

Raghu, please bring us joy!

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there'll be no joy in Mudville—'till Raghu Mathur's out!