Wow. Yesterday, Tom Fuentes’ anti-contract blitz swung into high gear. Recently, Reg Opiner Steven Greenhut has been blasting trustee John Williams regarding his support of the faculty union contract offer recently voted upon in a closed session board vote. Then, yesterday, came this Reg editorial:Editorial: Republicans ignore their principles:
Community college board with conservative majority approves huge pay raise
It's hard to believe – given the dire situation with the state budget, which is running a potential $40-billion-plus deficit, and the terrible state and national economic climate – that any public agency with the slightest shred of fiscal responsibility would be pushing forward large raises for public employees. Yet that's not only happening at a local community college district, but at one that has a board with a supposed conservative Republican governing majority. Are government officials this out of sync with reality?
They certainly seem to be at the South Orange County Community College District, which already pays some of the highest salaries in the state. According to recent estimates, the district pays the 10th-highest salaries out of 72 districts, but the board voted 4-3 in closed session to move forward a 9-percent salary increase for faculty members and 11-percent increase for part-time instructors, both over three years. These well-paid jobs, which come with some of the finest pension and other benefits, are sought after, so it's hard to believe there's a retention issue. But the board nevertheless is likely on Jan. 20 to give away the store to the faculty union….
The editorial extends the critical focus to trustee Nancy Padberg, who (reportedly) also supported the contract offer, and it slams Williams’ “rebuttal” to Greenhut’s criticisms:
…Ironically, Ms. Padberg is a prominent Republican, and Mr. Williams, another well-known Republican, is the elected public administrator for the county. Mr. Williams rebuts our criticisms by pointing to his long-running Republican credentials, but he doesn't deny that he favors the huge taxpayer-funded salary boosts.
He uses distinctly liberal reasoning: the district has a large budget surplus and the employees are underpaid compared to some other districts. He expects more federal funds to flow in given the importance of community college education and is worried about keeping the best employees. Some of the turnover problems Mr. Williams refers to are the result of overly generous pension benefits, which push people out of the classroom and onto the golf course at early ages. We'd certainly like to see hard evidence that the district is having retention problems before inflating pay, especially for those at the tail end of their careers….
On Wednesday, Jubal of Red County (Who Says The Union Lost The SOCCD Trustee Elections?) offered this:
Although Fuentes and Lang triumphed at the polls [in November], the union still seems to [have] won the election because four of the seven trustees are supporting a new contract that hands district faculty a whopping 9% pay increase, courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.
…
I don't know Milchiker and Jay, but it is practically impossible to attend an OC Republican event without seeing Williams and Padberg on hand. John Williams is a very nice man, and Nancy Padberg is...well, let's just say John Williams is a very nice man.
But John is also a union guy who is two-and-a-half dipping at the public till: retired county marshal, current county Public Administrator and SOCCD trustee. He enjoys union support in his trustee campaigns, and it's not hard to see why.
So I'm not really surprised John is supporting this contract. Disappointed, yes: a lot of taxpayers are cutting back their family budgets even as John wants to plow their money into a fatter union contract.
But not surprised….
Then, yesterday, Jubal (The Curious Case Of Nancy Padberg) switched focus to Nancy Padberg:
As it stands now, the contract is likely to be adopted on a 4-3 vote -- with the fourth vote for the contract coming from Trustee Nancy Padberg.
...
Padberg is a member of the OC GOP Central Committee and a fixture of local Republican events - and a self-described "Reagan Republican."
…
Giving a 9% pay increase in this economic environment, when SOCCD is looking at declining revenues in coming years, not only is not Reagan-like -- it is fiscally reckless. Padberg and the other three pro-union contract trustees need a serious reality check.
…
That Padberg is providing the fourth vote to put the union contract over the top is particular ironic considering the rhetoric in this "reader rebuttal" she published in the OC Register last September, heatedly denying she was a "union backer":
"Greenhut states Padberg, Milchiker and Jay support the union. In fact, I have voted against union proposals 96 percent of the time. I never voted to increase teacher salaries by 10 percent."
And Padberg's been as good as her word, bravely holding the line at 9% -- and not a penny more for that...that...union!
Ms. Padberg continues:
"I have fought tirelessly to contain all salaries, especially the salaries of administrators."
Given that she's supporting a 9% pay spike, Ms. Padberg has apparently stumbled onto a new definition of the word "tirelessly" no one else knew about.
Padberg closes her screed with:
"I defy anyone to prove my record is anything but that of a fiscal conservative and taxpayer watchdog."
Nancy Padberg has a golden opportunity to walk that talk by voting against the union contract on Tuesday. Otherwise, Padberg will be voting to rebut her own rebuttal.
Coincidentally, Padberg Is Up For Re-Election
…
Every two years, the OC Republican Party conducts its local elected officials endorsement process. In 2006, I observed ann [sic] endorsement committee meeting at which, aong [sick] other things, they considered an endorsement request from a candidate for one of the south coastal cities (I think it was San Clemente). This woman had been a registered Democrat at one time, and had apparently publicly endorsed a Democrat for a partisan [sic] office. Padberg mercilessly harangued the committee [sic] on these points, demanding they not endorse her.
Should Padberg actually cast the fourth vote on Tuesday, she ought to be held up to the same scrutiny she applied to that candidate. Personally[sic], I'll take an honest convert over a political Pharisee any day of the week.
Well, to top it off, yesterday, Chancellor Mathur emailed all SOCCCD employees, providing a link to the Reg editorial. What a guy!
Tuesday night’s meeting will be a humdinger.
13 comments:
Obviously change is NOT coming to Orange County.
Tom Fuentes owns these people (and they owe him) and when he says attack, they attack.
They gave him or sold him our district as a place to spend his dotage so they could take over the real power in the county - that's the real picture. It's an ugly one that isn't based on principle at all.
They humor him when they "help out" like this - let him believe that this kind of thing really matters.
I'll be at the meeting.
A 9% raise over 3 years is not "huge."
But with that said--and please understand that my comments are probably motivated more by envy than anything else--there's something wrong with our statewide CC funding system when three or four basic aid districts have lots of money and the rest of us are looking at cutbacks.
Once again, students who already have the most get the most, and students who have the least get the least.
None of this, of course, is the fault of faculty or staff in the SOCCCD. You're putting a chunk of your district's money on the salary schedule where it belongs. But down here, there isn't any money--and that's the inequity.
--100 miles down the road
I detest how Jubal digs at Nancy Padberg the way he does.
That OC Republican Boys Band is SOOOO misogynist - they just ooze it.
What ugliness.
They don't tolerate moderate views or dissenting ones - they annihilate them.
Padberg, though I disagree with many of her views, has always struck me as a thoughtful reasonable person who is not afraid to take a stand on principle.
What can we do if we can't go to the meeting? I teach.
This is about contempt for faculty. These people won't listen to facts or logic. To them, people who are paid with taxpayer money are essentially unsavory, like communists or devil worshippers. What follows from such a status? I'm surprised they're not advocating that we work for free. Hell, I'm surprised they're not advocating that we pay the district for the privilege to teach.
LMAO! You sanctimonious liberal fuckheads!
Did anyone happen to notice that the Trustee pay increase is back on the January Board Agenda? Just asking. Thought it was rather ironic. 9% over 3 years vs. approximately 67% increase. Hmmmm...
I see the Stupid People have returned (7:55).
Yes, it takes them sooo long to get sooo stupid.
Also guys like this 7:55 fella who rely so much on exclamation points and profanity are trying to make up for inadequacies in other departments.
If you know what I mean. Trust me. I dated one or two.
9:04 PM, January 16, 2009,
No point in getting bent over 7:55 using the f-bomb. Gosh, you folks use it all the time and that's ok.
9:04, obviously, our objection to 7:55 is not his use of the word "fuck." Think, man, think.
Post a Comment