A year ago in the SOCCCD

● MY GOD! THERE MIGHT BE—CRONYISM!

On Dec. 19, 2005 (Cronyism & Mirthulence), we reported on the December meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees, in which “Trustee Tom Fuentes, former Big Cheese of the OC Republican Party, expressed a concern that the faculty hiring process up for approval that night might permit faculty ‘cronyism.’”

HA! This, of course, was a stunning instance of the pot calling the kettle black. Naturally, in DtB, we spelled that out in gory detail!

● FUENTES’ BUGABOO.

That night (Peevitude in Detail (12/17)) was also the night in which Tom Fuentes expressed his objections to the new and improved faculty hiring policy (up for approval), which had been in development for many months. In Tom’s view, the new policy gave too much power to faculty, and especially to “the union,” Fuentes’ standard bugaboo. (See also Doubting Thomas (12/13).)

According to the new (and old) policy, the union, of course, has no representatives on hiring committees. But, noted Fuentes, the Academic Senates do have representatives. And those reps are likely members of the union.

Oh. The new policy passed.

The policy change arose from an illegal action (so said the court), by Chancellor Mathur, with the Board Majority’s support, to unilaterally impose a new policy on faculty. The faculty’s victory in this case will have far-reaching ramifications in California community colleges with regard to faculty's role in college governance.

In other words, this gang of tough, leather-faced hombres managed to shoot themselves in the foot, letting varmints vamoose into the Hole-in-the-Wall with all the dang horses. Or something.

● CLASSIFIED CONTRACT.

At the same meeting, Classified leader MARY WILLIAMS addressed the board, urging its representatives to come to settlement regarding the contract. The room was pretty tense. Since that itme, of course, a settlement has been reached.


● THE YEAR OF BOB "DON'T GET CAUGHT" KING

"[G]etting caught hiring someone 'under the table' is easier than you think...."! --From the highly-principled website, Legally Nanny

At the board meeting a year ago, Fuentes announced the hire of BOB KING as Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. King is a lawyer (indeed, years ago, he was on the district's team during my 1st Amendment lawsuit), and this inspired speculation about a hidden agenda. (Gosh, maybe Mathur was just contemplating hiring a nanny? Check out Bob's Legally Nanny. You won't regret it.)

Sure enough, after a few months, Mathur attempted to redefine King's duties to broaden them and to make him essentially the house attorney, but the board didn't support that.

It was King who was left holding the bag when Mathur attempted to sneak through his COLA/raise. There may be signs that King has figured out what others have figured out about his boss. Watch Bob's facial expressions change over time.

Or not.

● BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLLOVER.

The December board meeting includes the trustees’ yearly “organizational” meeting. A year ago, trustee BILL JAY nominated the then-existing board leadership--Lang, Padberg, Fuentes--for a repeat performance, and that was approved unanimously.

That’s not what happened a year later, however. This month, Padberg was bumped in favor of Wagner.

By now, it is clear that we have a new BOARD MAJORITY, namely, Lang, Williams, Wagner, & Fuentes. Ironically (considering history), it is Nancy Padberg, among the BOARD MINORITY, who is the target of the most--and the most ugly--BM snipery.

● THE “BENEDICT ARNOLD 'THANK YOU'” PLAQUE.

On that night, Chancellor Mathur gave board president Lang a handsome plaque for recognizing his--i.e., Mathur’s--excellence: “…I would like to recognize our board president…. President Lang, … You have been consistently fair and respectful of all people, including me ... You are always willing to recognize excellence.”

Notoriously, Lang’s was the swing vote in the board action, of June ’05, to renew Mathur’s contract. For many years, Lang and Milchiker had been Mathur’s chief detractors. Lang’s surprise switcheroo is one of the great SOCCCD mysteries. Why'd he do it? Why did he take Mathur's side when all of his supporters urged him in the strongest terms not to?

As near as anyone can tell, Lang is still behind his man Mathur. The district is still in the toilet, and we can thank Dave Lang, "changer of men."


● PADBERG/WILLIAMS SHOOTOUT.

This was the night of one the noisier Nancy Padberg/John Williams shootouts. This particular gun battle concerned removal of items from the “consent calendar.” Leaving items on the consent calendar means, of course, that they are approved without discussion. That night, Padberg acted to remove a large number of items from the CC in order to raise issues about them, inspiring a revolt on the part of Williams, Wagner, and Lang, who seemed to think her issues could be dealt with informally, before the meeting, in phone conversations with the Chancellor. You know, behind closed doors. (The CC/"Padberg doesn't do her homework" stuff came up again last month. See Board report.)

Tension often erupts between Williams and Padberg, of course. By this meeting, Williams had fired Padberg at the county Public Administrator office. Why?

● CREATIONISTS LOSE, GET SPANKED.

Let's not forget that, exactly one year ago (Just what I wanted (12/23)), Creationists (anti-Evolutionists) suffered a huge legal defeat in the crucial “Dover” case, in which parents with children in the Dover Area School District (in Pennsylvania) fought inclusion of “intelligent design” in science instruction. The inclusion occurred on advice from lawyers provided by the Discovery Institute.

(Aside: the Discovery Institute has received much of its funding from OC’s Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives." Ahmanson is a close friend of Tom Fuentes.)

The judge presiding over the case was Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative Republican appointed by George W. Bush. Jones concluded that it is “unconstitutional” to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in the public schools. Jones went further. He decided that the parents who brought the suit were entitled to damages!

It was a bad day for the irrationalists and a good day for truth, justice, and the American Way.

"It is ironic that these individuals, who so proudly touted their religious convictions in public would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." --From the Jones opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover school Board.