Saturday, December 9, 2006

Board meeting on Monday


Site Meter

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!

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is absolutely shameful that the Trustees would give Mathur a 5.92% raise PLUS THE DOUBLE-PAY OPTION OF CASHING OUT $60,000 from unused time off, while telling the two colleges they must operate with as much as $1.5 million less than last year (IVC). The District is slowly getting smaller in enrollment, older in existing facilities and increasingly unsettled due to poor leadership from the Chancellor (the Accrediting Comission)and still give the architect of our ten year long failure a raise. Wow, that's the way to make the New Year a happy one.

Anonymous said...

Unadulterated blather.

Anonymous said...

Unadulterated Mathur.

Anonymous said...

j
Shut up. These trustees are doing a good job. There's no reason why the agendas should be full of useless information. You need to start having trust. Liberal! If you people had your way hundreds of people would show up to board meetings, and they'd never get anyting done.

Anonymous said...

"(... .this board stands behind Mathur like George W stands behind his disastsrous war.)"

thou are allot of good things, chunk, but ye are not credible in assessing war, especially from where ye are in comfort and wealth. stick to the things ye know or step forward to meet the enemy thyself. then and only then will ye be credible at determining the character of this war.

Anonymous said...

I have nothing useful to say, but that last post made me laugh because I couldn't decide if it was aiming for King James or Jack Sparrow.

Rebel Girl said...

12:34

Really? Must one have some sort of war experience or war expertise to offer a judgment about the Iraq war?

We were told that Saddam had WMD that might be used against us.

False. The case offered was based on cherry-picking--and wholly unwarranted confidence. (Or lies.)

We were told that we attacked "them" because "they attacked us first."

But Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. That was known before the war.

Military experts have carped from day 1 about major missteps, such as the decision to go in with minimal troops.

Experts tell us that we are more threatened by terrorism today than we were three or four years ago. They tell us that this war has caused that change.

Surely a citizen who has not experienced war can nevertheless note the above and reasonably conclude that this war is disastrous!

I don't mind being reminded that I have not served in the military and that I have not directly experienced war.

And I don't mind your opinion about who should or should not offer their judgment about a war. Still, it is clear, I think, that your point is absurd on its face.

Think about it this way: what if we were to leave all decisions about wars to the military and to those who have experienced war. Is there any reason to think that, in that case, wiser judgments would be made? Any reason at all?

Anonymous said...

as one might conclude, you're way too academic, chunk. you are indeed a prisoneer of your own narrow and limited life experience. my point is simple - when the islamic fnatics come knocking at your door i hope you will have the spine to defend yourself because right now you have the luxury to sit comfortably in your OC digs with the freedom to be critical of those who now must now make the hard decisions.

Rebel Girl said...

Patrick:

If that is your point, then you made it badly. Earlier, you seemed to say that those who have no war experience (no doubt YOU have experienced war--which makes you--what?--an expert on war?) have no business offering an opinion about our current war. That view is preposterous. By that logic, the president and the VP and the secretary of defense have no business offering an opinion about the current war.

Now you seem to be saying something else: that to reject the current war (or, to be precise, to view it as disastrous) is to declare that one will not defend oneself should Islamic terrorists come bombing at one's door.

No, I'm all in favor of self-defense. The question is, of course, is this war an instance of self-defense? Given the testimony of the military, the CIA, et al., it would appear that this war is an instance of self-injury.

And, no, I am not among those who think we should just pull out today.

Think, Patrick, think.

Anonymous said...

Get ready..The draft is about to return

Anonymous said...

This is quite amusing, and I don't mean the grammar and spelling:

"when the islamic fnatics come knocking at your door i hope you will have the spine to defend yourself"--

Yes, let's be concerned about the numerous Islamic tank brigades rolling up Jamboree Road. Geez.

Anonymous said...

and let's defend ourselves with our spines!

Anonymous said...

I like your kitty.

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...