Friday, March 9, 2007

A pitcher, no catchers



IT SEEMS THAT SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur is in a big hurry to secure faculty “buy-in” with regard to the ”Advanced Technology and Education Park,” the hopeful name given to sixty-eight acres of abandoned Navy dirt & dilapidation in Tustin. Provost Bob Kopecky and his team have labored for years now to bring the ATEP project to a propitious point, for the parcel is undoubtedly valuable, and thirteen parties—some of them well-heeled—have submitted “partnership" proposals. Each proposal-maker hopes to serve his interests (namely, use of primo real estate!) while seeming also to serve the SOCCCD's interests (namely, creating special voc ed opportunities).

No doubt owing to this recent emergence of Big Money and potential Technicolor spotlightitude (roll all the proposals together, and you’ve got over a Billion Bucks!), Mathur has finally noticed ATEP.

Naturally, he’s grabbed that ball and he’s running like hell with it.

In the meantime, faculty, at least at Irvine Valley College, have generally expressed annoyance (or worse) concerning their evident and unexplained ATEPular out-of-loopitude. It has seemed to faculty that this ATEP deal, with its manifest implications for curriculum and program development, is being defined by Raghu and the Big Money Men—sans faculty. It's yet another instance, they say, of Mathur and the board ignoring the faculty’s rightful role.


Yesterday's IVC all-college meeting:

Yesterday afternoon, Mathur arranged for a special meeting at Irvine Valley College to update everybody on ATEP. As these meetings go, it was a success. It was well-attended and the presentations were, well, good.

There was a problem, though. Lots of administrators and classified employees showed up. But only three faculty showed.

At a college, faculty are important. They're crucial to any project that concerns, well, education.

But they didn't show for Mathur's ATEP meeting.


I confess

Let me confess from the start that, unlike most of my colleagues, I am an ATEP booster. I like and trust Bob Kopecky. I think this ATEP thing could be great, not only for the colleges, but for the county. Listening to the many ATEP possibilities yesterday, I was genuinely excited, and not for the first time.

Hell, I’ll even say that Mathur’s part in yesterday's presentation was excellent. Really.

—Except, of course, for that moment when he responded to a faculty comment (no, not mine) by saying that it “appalled” him. (It appalled him a “little,” he said.)

That’s the petty and ugly side of Raghu. Long-time denizens of IVC know it well.

Can such a man lead?

—Still, essentially, as far as I can see, this ATEP deal sounds at least very promising. If handled intelligently and carefully, it could be great.

But none of that matters. For a a project like this to work, you’ve got to get faculty buy-in. But, at least at IVC, faculty refuse to be led by Raghu. They just don’t trust him.

Can you blame them? (To learn the many reasons for faculty distrust, simply peruse Dissent’s archives. Start with 1997.)

In brief:

So here’s what happened at yesterday's meeting. I’ll be brief.

Chancellor Mathur spoke first and at length (in truth, he hogged almost all the time). He explained how ATEP must be funded. The money can’t come from the two colleges—they can’t spare a dime. It can’t come from basic aid (i.e., money derived from local property taxes), which wouldn’t be enough anyway. The only option is to invite “partnerships” in which private entities pony up the needed bucks.

Bingo.

Raghu explained the short- and long-term plans for ATEP. Short-term, ATEP will open in the fall with a modest set of course offerings (30-35 sections). Classrooms will be ready in two months; a dean will be hired within a week or so.

Long-term, we’re pursuing the aforementioned partnerships. Owing to Kopecky & company's hard work, thirteen proposals have materialized. They add up to a huge amount of money.

That’s “not a shabby start,” said Raghu.

After the “executive council” (Mathur, the VCs, the two college presidents, Kopecky, et al.) interviewed the proposal makers, 5-7 of them were invited to make their pitch again to the board (December through February).

Now, a “team,” led by Vice Chancellor Gary P, will pursue negotiations with the parties.

The district faces a deadline. We’ve got to show the City of Tustin that we’ve got a master plan and that we’re making “significant progress” in implementing that plan by April of 2009.

During the negotiations process, the district will be advised by: a law firm that is experienced in such negotiations, a “master architect” (who will work with the the proposal makers' architects), an experienced financial advisor, and experts among our own ranks (Serban, et al.).

In the meantime, Vice Chancellor Serban and Provost Kopecky will work with faculty, et al., to identify programmatic and curricular needs, etc.

The latter work must be accomplished within the next few months, said Mathur. Anyone who wants input can have it, he said.

The Chancellor explained the “Camelot” proposal. The Camelot Group proposes a film/TV/soundstage/studio complex with a radio and, possibly, a TV station. CSU Fullerton has a film (production?) program, and they, too, are very interested in using any studio/soundstage facilities we might have.

CSU Fullerton has a bio-tech program, too, that it would love to house at ATEP.

Raghu emphasized that the proposals are exactly that: proposals. These parties have explained what they want. We need to be clear about what we want (we want to train students) and adjust our approach to negotiation accordingly. It is a mistake, said Raghu, to suppose that any proposal maker will get precisely what he or she has asked for.

Raghu also explained proposals of the SEIS Group (robotics), ADM Works (rapid prototyping, product design), EBD (assisting minority entrepreneurship), and the Young Americans (400 young people, singing/dancing/taking classes).

The county faces a growing shortage of nurses, said the chancellor, and so we might wish to extend Saddleback College’s nursing program to ATEP. “Culinary arts,” too, can be housed at (extended to?) ATEP.

Briefly, Bob Kopecky spoke. He reminded the audience of his notion of “imbedded education” (student training/education must be truly imbedded in anything we do with our "partners") and his hope that we can launch a “21st Century campus” in which students work “shoulder to shoulder” with business people, technicians, and so on, using the "latest and greatest" equipment.

At the end of the presentation, Mathur made another pitch for involvement from members of the campus community. He did the best job I’ve ever seen him do in asking folks to get involved.

Hell, he had me going.

But faculty were not in the room.

P.S.: AS I WRITE (Friday morning, 8:00 a.m.), Mathur and Co. are preparing for a repeat performance at IVC, but that is likely to attract a far smaller audience.

At yesterday's presentation, a member of the School of Humanities & Languages--the unit most associated with opposition to Mathur--raised this question: lots of energy and money is going into this third campus, but there's so much that still needs to be done at the two colleges. For instance, at IVC, long-promised and much-needed buildings have yet to materialize.

"What building are you talking about?" asked Raghu.

"The Humanities building. We all know what building we're talking about," said the faculty member.

Back in 1980, said the faculty member, a Humanities Bldg. was promised, but it kept being put off. In recent years, the project seems to have even disappeared from planning altogether. The English department, she said, is the biggest dept. within H&L, and it doesn't even have its own classrooms.

"We can't even get the basics," she said, "for the largest school on campus."

That's when Mathur went off the rails a bit. The faculty member had a point. Indeed, during one of Raghu's visits to the School of H & L a year or two ago, he expressed sympathy for this very complaint. He even suggested that he'd look into it and try to do something about it. (We never heard back from him.)

At yesterday's presentation, however, he responded with hostility. At first, he kept his cool. But then he said: "I'm a little appalled by your comment."

Appalled?

Perhaps he thought better of it. Later, he did say that "we will do our darndest" to help with the space issues at the two campuses.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Magnificent piece, Chunk. Very informative. Says a lot about Raghu, but even more about faculty. Everyone has heard the adage, lead, follow, or get out of the way. Well, faculty have apparently chosen not to follow, so the right thing for them to do now is to simply get out of the way.

Anonymous said...

I agree with most things you say Chunk, but I'm not with you on your take on Kopecky. All I hear from the guy are the same things. He seems pretty shallow to me -- a lot of jokes and blather, but not much substance. And it seems to me that so much of ATEP is just plain hokey.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it just the same old, same old? They don't care what we do, how we teach, the conditions under which students learn - they just want these glam projects that make them look good?

I mean, has anyone figured out how the new theater on campus is even going to be physically managed at a time when they can even manage the aging buildings we already got?

I dump the trash in my own classrooms right now. And no - those aren't dedicated classrooms either.

Anonymous said...

Don't you have to have buy-in and a process that insures it?

Don't leaders lead best when the commitment to buy-in is there from the beginning and manifested in a process that insures it?

ATEP maybe somebody's dream - and it might be agood dream too - but in the current context how can they expect buy-in, especially from IVC?

Anonymous said...

I love how Raghu ask you to asks questions and then when you do he bashes you one.

There's a leader, yup.

Anonymous said...

I don't resent ATEP its moment in the sun (and money) just like Saddleback didn't resent us for ours (right?) - but I do resent a district that can't manage what it already has - and instead of addressing those shortfalls, imagiens they will go away or we'll just shut up.

yeah, gotta love a leader who treats questions with disdain.

Anonymous said...

ATEP is a money pit...millions have been poured into it while IVC goes through budget cut backs year after year...no pens, paper, markers, erasers, something is wrong here. More colleges resources are being poured into ATEP then ever, so don't stand there on your little horse and tell me it's not...even if it's district resources, that time money and effort could be aimed at the colleges. Anyone visit the A200 restrooms lately? sinks, toilets, floors need to be replaced and kept clean. There are many people that love this college and it is so disheartening and depressing to see a handful of HIGHLY paid administrators tear it apart because of their incompentence and political agendas. Let's just call it like it is.

Anonymous said...

oh yes, we've all heard the old adage - lead, follow or get out of the way.

Most of us don't rely on old adages to guide us in our daily lives for reasons that are obvious.

Anonymous said...

I like the park ranger if not the park.

Anonymous said...

is he really a pitcher?

Anonymous said...

Raghu wants us to get more involved when we don't even get adequate support to fulfill our basic obligations in the classroom?

come on.

Anonymous said...

Glad you're well, Chunk! Nice piece.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the critics who visit this blog (the ones who support Mathur, et al.) go to these meetings and volunteer their own time and expertise?

Would anyone one of those critics like to share how they are helping our leaders lead?

Anonymous said...

Give the man a chance.

He did say he was going to do his "darndest."

Let's watch.

Anonymous said...

The purpose of the faculty isn't to simply follow or get out of the way. 6:08 and other Raghu enthusiasts don't seem to understand that you can love something (such as the district or the college) and still find fault.

Anonymous said...

Love it or leave it folks.

Anonymous said...

I love you Chunk but come on, ATEP is like my uncle's hollow leg.

Anonymous said...

So, 10:52 AM, we should turn away about 70 acres of prime land in the middle of Orange County because you are emptying trash cans? Are you serious? I'm just as cynical as anyone else about our district leadership, but let's get real. I'm with Chunk on this one. The park ranger could have come up with any number of plans that would have sucked a lot more money from the colleges - and you can bet the board would have funded them. I think he's sincere and I think there are some exciting things happening that could benefit our students.

Anonymous said...

Quoting 4:39, "The purpose of the faculty ..."

Now there's a provocative lead-in open to much interpretation.

Anonymous said...

There should be enough for all three campuses to get what they need. people are just frustrated, that's all.

Anonymous said...

Chunk, you missed a few major and obvious details. This isn't like you. First, notice that the announcement for the All College Meeting came directly from the Chancellor's Office to the College bypassing the Office of the College President entirely. Don't you think that if the Chancellor was serious about IVC "buy in", he might start by consulting at least with the Office of the College President? Second, the annoucement for the meeting was sent only a few days prior to the meeting. Don't you think that if the Chancellor was serious about faculty/college "buy in", he might start by consulting with the faculty/college as to the best times and dates for an All College Meeting? Do you know if there was any consultation to this effect? Or were the meetings simply scheduled and everybody was supposed to reschedule their meetings in order to attend? Was this another case of when Mathur says jump, we all must jump or get out of the way? Third, do you know of how faculty have tried to have input into the ATEP proposals but have been told that it wasn't time yet. Do you know why it is suddenly time when just a month ago, it wasn't time? Fourth, how are faculty supposed to have input into ATEP development? Is there a formal process? Or, should whoever shows up at an All College Meeting be the voice of the faculty?

Opps, Chunk, I'd say you don't have all the facts on this one. But, like you, I think Park Ranger Kopecky is just swell and dreamy too.

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...