The February board meeting: honoring that paragon of Bergesonian virtue

.....The board meeting was supposed to start at 6:00 p.m., but it didn’t actually start until nearly 7:30, suggesting, of course, that the board had lots to discuss in closed session. [See Tracy's Board Meeting Highlights.]
.....No noteworthy action taken during closed session was announced.
.....Next came “public comments.” Said bemused Board President Don Wagner: “No requests to speak, is that true? People are learning!”
.....This evoked some laughter.
.....Trustee reports were unremarkable.
.....Chancellor Raghu Mathur described our administrative delegation’s contributions to the recent ACCCA conference in San Francisco. He praised a presentation concerning ATEP and VC of Tech Robert Bramucci’s keynote address. (At the conference, he got people to sing. Seems like a bad idea.)

nepotism: the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, esp. by giving them jobs. (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition)

.....One trustee requested a report: Tom Fuentes wanted a report on nepotism. In particular, he wanted to know how well the district board policy on nepotism is administered “to prevent nepotism.” He said he was concerned to have “the cleanest operation possible.” The report, he said, is especially important in view of our economic downturn.

.....Possibly he’s right about all that. Dunno. Still, I feel compelled to observe that Tom Fuentes is Mr. Hypocritical Politician, par excellence. I dunno about nepotism, but Tom has got to be the most cronyistic guy the world has ever seen. I won’t go into the usual examples.
.....Tell me, why are the most unchristian people always noisy, pious, self-righteous Christians? How does that work, exactly?
.....Tom asked that the report be as “detailed” as possible.
.....Sensing that ugly politics were afoot, Don Wagner asked for clarification. What do you mean by “nepotism”?
.....Fuentes turned to Mathur, who referred to the district’s board policy, which, he said, underwent a “legal review.” In his mind, that suggested that it contained legal definitions. So there you go.
.....Wagner asked, “Is the report looking for violations of the board policy?” Wagner noted that the presence of relatives among employees is one thing; nepotism is something else altogether.
.....Fuentes clearly wanted the “broadest” report possible. That is, he wanted to see lists of relatives.
.....It’s the usual witchhunt. Why bother with a tiny list of possible cases in which employees acted to benefit relatives when one can assemble a much longer and more impressive list of, well, just relatives.

I have here in my hand a list of 205 … names.  —Joseph McCarthy

.....Wagner noted that the presence of relatives in the workplace is not in itself nepotism—not in any meaningful sense. He decided to illustrate his point with the name of a volunteer that appeared in a footnote somewhere—a Michael Telson, whom, he said, is the nephew of Saddleback VP of SS Lise Telson.
.....Telson was in the audience. She spoke. She has no such nephew, she intoned.
.....She looked seriously pissed. I got the sense that her anger was not only about this apparent misunderstanding, if that's what it was. Emotions were running high. Naturally, there were plenty of characters in the room who could be the ultimate source of her consternation.
.....Next came a discussion item: Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery Plans. Bramucci, Palmer, and Glenn took turns presenting. There were lots of warm and fuzzies. Even Mathur got slathered with ‘em.
.....Next came Curriculum Review for the two colleges. As you can imagine, so riveting was this presentation that, by the end of it, trustees were speechless. There were no questions.
.....A handful of items were pulled from the consent calendar.
.....Item 5.5 concerned that semi-hinky business about cosmetology program review. The item recommended the payment of $3,400 to a beauty college in Lake Forest.
.....We were told that Saddleback College contracts out to this business, but the contract does not include program review, which requires time and effort. And so the beauty college people must be paid for that time and effort.
.....Lang suggested that paying these people to review their program involves an apparent conflict of interest. Yeah, said Saddleback College President Tod Burnett (who seemed addled), but faculty routinely review their own programs. They’re paid to do that.
.....Lang offered a painful milquetoastian smile. OK, he murmured.
.....Item 5.7 was the “loop road project.” I’ll spare you the details. They’re gonna go forward with the study of this road. Gotta think of the future.
.....Item 5.19 was trustee requests for conference money. There was a solitary request to attend the “Campus Safety Conference” in Long Beach.
.....Nancy Padberg was skeptical. She said she wanted to know which trustee made this request. (Translation: “What’s that rat bastard John Williams up to this time?”)
.....There was some hemming and hawing. But Padberg did not relent. Eventually, Williams said that he’ll go, if he can--as though he had nothing to do with the request. Padberg made clear that a “request” only appears when a trustee makes a request. So who did that in this case?
.....That would be John “junket boy” Williams.
.....Next came the wild discussion of “Chancellor recruitment.” (See yesterday’s post.)
.....Item 6.6 concerned the “Marian Bergeson” award. Fuentes grabbed the mike. He gave an absurd speech about his pal Bergeson and her values. Who among us is a paragon of Bergesonian virtue? Well, that would be John “two scathing grand jury reports” Williams!
.....Eyes rolled.
.....John accepted the nomination. Aw shucks, he said.
.....The board voted unanimously in favor of the nomination. I stared at the tally of votes displayed above my head and to the left.
.....Nobody said anything.