Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Mathur (or Vega?) pulls the plug on Vega

What a curious turn of events.

As you know, Chancellor Raghu Mathur brought in Bill Vega as a consultant. Vega was supposed to produce a report, based on a series of interviews over a period of two weeks. Evidently, after only one day on the job (all of it at IVC), Vega is out; Mathur has pulled the plug on Vega’s work. —Or maybe Vega bailed as he hinted he might. It's hard to say.

Mathur seems to be saying that it's his idea.

In an email sent mid-afternoon, Chancellor Mathur engaged in some dubious revisionism concerning the events leading to Vega’s hire. For instance, according to Mathur, Vega's consultation is a continuation of a "review of our decision-making processes at the Board, District and College levels" that started with the Woodruff/Walton technical assistance "some months ago."

Some months ago? Actually, Woodruff/Walton visited 2 ½ years ago. And the notion that their technical assistance visit way back then is linked to Vega's consultation has never been expressed until now, as far as I know.

Then Mathur ends his email with this:

Dr. Vega began his work yesterday at Irvine Valley College. Today he reported to me that, based on his interviews with many faculty and staff members, it is his observation that the decision-making process seems to be working well and any further assessment work is not necessary at this time. Therefore, I’ve decided to discontinue the work of the consultant, Dr. Bill Vega, effective immediately. He has graciously concurred. We may conduct such a review through a more collaborative process in the selection of a consultant perhaps at another time, when we have more time, and as deemed necessary.

At the “open forum” yesterday, Vega clearly implied that he had been hired to examine decision-making, not only internal to IVC, but also at Saddleback College, at the district, and in the district’s interface with the colleges. Also, at the forum, he clearly suggested that he was very sympathetic to complaints he heard there (and elsewhere) especially regarding district (i.e., Chancellor and even board) involvement and interference with college decision-making at IVC. At some meetings yesterday, Mathur's intrusions into the hiring of deans at IVC were cited as instances of improper involvement or interference. The board's last-minute insertion of language into Accreditation Progress Reports (in late 2007) was also cited.

Hence, it is very strange to hear Mathur's account that, today, Vega judges that “the decision-making process seems to be working well.” Again, Vega has not yet examined Saddleback College’s decision-making process or that college’s interface with the district. Further, yesterday, Vega clearly implied that he agreed that serious problems exist with regard to IVC decision-making insofar as the district (i.e., the Chancellor) interfered with it.

In today's email, Mathur also attributes to Vega the judgment that “any further assessment work is not necessary at this time.” Again, this would seem to contradict the implications of some of Vega’s remarks during meetings yesterday. Vega clearly implied that his report would include strong recommendations; indeed, he warned us that the board might fail to accept those recommendations.

In his email, Mathur asserts that Vega has “concurred”—evidently with the decision to cease Vega’s efforts. Yesterday, however, Vega obviously viewed the decision-making processes within SOCCCD as troubled and problematic. If so, why would he judge (today) that no full examination of SOCCCD decision-making is necessary? (On the other hand, he hinted yesterday that he might not be able to complete his work in good conscience, given the non-collaborative fashion in which he was hired by Mathur.)

Mathur asserts that we may “conduct such a review [of decision-making] through a more collaborative process in the selection of a consultant perhaps at another time.” As I explained last night, a major theme in the discussion during the open forum was the Chancellor’s failure to use a “collaborative" processes in selecting Vega or in securing a consultant at all. Indeed, yesterday, Vega asserted that, had he known that the faculty were not consulted in selecting him, he would never have taken the job. I can only conclude, therefore, that Mathur's last sentence is an acknowledgement—no doubt forced upon him by his superiors—that his failure to collaborate in this instance was unfortunate and is not to be repeated.

Naturally, each college’s Accreditation Focus Group must now consider whether to discuss and include this strange truncated episode of consultation and its unfortunate defects with regard to process and collaboration.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello! Well, another day in paradise at the SOCCCD where it has once again become predictable what Mathur would do, & this is pull the plug on someone who completely disagrees w/him or he lies about what their report says. Mathur was looking for someone who was going to be a "yes" man for him, & when Vega wasn't he let him go. You know, I am paying you so I want you to give me the answers I want you to give me, not the facts, just agree w/me. I definitely agree w/you Roy in that I do not see where Vega would have done a 180 degree turn & all of a sudden felt that everything was hunky dory in the district, especially after what everybody witnessed during yesterday's forum. You know, I'm starting to wonder if being a cynic is the only approach you can take if someone is to survive in this district. Just know how Mathur operates & don't expect anything else and chances are you'd be right, and just prepare yourself. Thanks for the report Roy.:-)

Anonymous said...

ah ha!

another feather in our cap!

It SO obvious to anyone who was in the meeting yesterday that Mathur is LYING in his memo.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the reason, we have one less meeting to go to and that is a good thing.

Anonymous said...

The language in Mathur's latest memo on this fiasco is SO tortured!

(how much money did Vega cost us anyway?)

Anonymous said...

wow - here we go again!

Anonymous said...

Everyone who knew Vega from his work at other colleges said he was a person of integrity. Vega discovered that the College decision-making processes are working well, except for Mathur's interfence. Vega discovered that the faculty and the College administration are getting along well, even certain district administrators and the faculty are getting along well. Vega also discovered that that the faculty are NOT fighting with the BOT and that the problem is NOT the faculty.

When it became absolutely clear the problem is Mathur, he bailed. How many times in the open forum did he say, "this is not what I expected"?

Mathur lied to Vega. Mathur hired Vega to validate Mathur. When it became clear that Vega could not validate Mathur, he bailed. How many times did Vega say, "that's not the role of a chancellor"?

The BOT has clear evidence that their only employee is a failure. It is time for Mathur to announce his retirement and for the SOCCCD to begin the search for a real chancellor.

Anonymous said...

I certainly hope the focus groups will include the Vega interlude in their reports - why not?

Another Mathur F*#!-up

Anonymous said...

Maybe he was persuaded to "bow out," to "withdraw," to "resign," to "bail" because of the most obvious BROWN ACT VIOLATION!!!!

Anonymous said...

ooooh!

Calm down.

and watch those exclamation points - they don't help you at all.

tsk, tsk, tsk.

Anonymous said...

Ah, Mathur's missives. Caveat lector!

Anonymous said...

Vega did not accept any compensation for his one-day "visit" to IVC.

What Brown Act Violation? The BOT did NOT take action to hire Vega, either in closed session or open session. Mathur hired Vega to demonstrate to the BOT that the problem is the faculty, not him. If the BOT did not take action to hire Vega, there is no Brown Act violation.

Vega reported at the Open Forum that he did not know who was paying him. He probably didn't.

Nobody knew who hired Vega, who was paying Vega, or what his purpose was, including Vega. Can you think of any administrator, let alone a chancellor, that would create such a mess as both Colleges are on the brink of losing their accreditation?

Of course, because this is all about Mathur, he would be pleased as punch to continue to be a chancellor of two non-accredited colleges rather than do the right thing and retire.

This entire episode clearly demonstrates that Mathur is becoming more delusional and pathological as he ages. His memo is a straight out lie.

I think this was the most public mess Mathur has ever created.

Has anybody spoken to the Board Pres?

Anonymous said...

Hey there!

Trust me, make no bones about it, word about what happened w/Vega will get around very quickly, especially after what he was told at that forum. This will be just one more thing we can chalk up to Mathur's one way thinking. It's all about Mathur. I suspect that it will get back to the Accreds, plus Mathur's "questionable" memo. Of course, with Mathur I suppose it's a matter of, "If you cannot dazzle them w/brilliance, baffle them w/bull****."

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...