Happy Birthday Buddy Holly!

Rebel Girl's Poetry Corner: "Did I Miss Anything"

Did I Miss Anything
by Tim Wayman

Question frequently asked by
students after missing a class

Nothing. When we realized you weren't here
we sat with our hands folded on our desks
in silence, for the full two hours

Everything. I gave an exam worth
40 per cent of the grade for this term
and assigned some reading due today
on which I'm about to hand out a quiz
worth 50 per cent

Nothing. None of the content of this course
has value or meaning
Take as many days off as you like:
any activities we undertake as a class
I assure you will not matter either to you or me
and are without purpose

Everything. A few minutes after we began last time
a shaft of light descended and an angel
or other heavenly being appeared
and revealed to us what each woman or man must do
to attain divine wisdom in this life and
the hereafter
This is the last time the class will meet
before we disperse to bring this good news to all people
on earth

Nothing. When you are not present
how could something significant occur?

Everything. Contained in this classroom
is a microcosm of human existence
assembled for you to query and examine and ponder
This is not the only place such an opportunity has been
gathered

but it was one place

And you weren't here

*

Irvine Valley College invaded by ants

I spoke with Rebel Girl today, over the phone. I asked, "What's up at our little college?"
"Not much," she said.
"Well," she added, "we're being invaded by ants. I can't even eat my lunch here in the office, 'cause it attracts them."
Evidently, there's talk in the hallways about a possible rift in the terrestrial biomass, or something, caused by today's oppressive heat (plus "reverse seepage" from Irvine's notorious toxic aquifers). According to our biologists, it's only a matter of time before larger "toxic" ants attack and even kidnap students.
"As if we didn't have enough problems," they said.

IVC police are now off parking patrol. They're now totally focused on the growing ant menace.

Artist's conception: evidently, there's a real possibility of a kind of "super invasion" in places on campus that are "shiny, sterile, bright, and totally unused."

In Good Company: Profs Who Blog

We're not the only ones.

In case you didn't know: the blogosphere has attracted a number of tenured radicals, disgruntled part-timers, whimsical academics, long-winded liberal arts types, outraged educators, etc. etc. And even an administrator or two.

Their posts range from class encounters, college politics, collegial challenges, meeting minutes, discipline disputes and yes, photos of cats, parking lot travails, bookstore misorders (It's week three — are your books in yet?) cafeteria fare, and personal digressions.

Here's a few:

University Diaries. Hosted by Margaret Soltan, professor of English at George Washington University. Boy is she pissed — mostly about athletics and funding, the usual scandals — but also about distance learning and diploma mills. She likes poems too. And she sings.

Changing Universities — Hosted by Bob Samuels (a comrade of Red Emma). It's all things UC and lecturer related. Read it and weep.

Tenured Radical, hosted by Claire Potter, is now at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Some fun. Phyllis Schlafly, Sarah Palin and Gloria Steinem—and much more. What does she teach? History and American Studies, natch. Rebel Girl is in love.

Confessions of a Community College Dean. Title says it all.

Reassigned Time, Hosted by Dr. Crazy. Read about her experiences with curriculum. Go ahead. We dare you.

Professor Cero's Mictlantecuhtli from somewhere in Louisiana. Cats. Food. Music. And teaching, of course. Professing.

More later.

*

(P.S.: Phil from down south recommends College Misery. —BvT)

The real problem at Irvine Valley College

     Irvine Valley geology Professor Glenn Roquemore said his campus is in turmoil not because of [Trustee Steven] Frogue's leadership but because faculty have chosen to be at war with one another over his decisions.
     Because Roquemore supports the appointment of [Raghu] Mathur [as IVC President] and the reorganization [that eliminated IVC's school chairs], he is treated as a leper, he said. He walks through the hallway and no one makes eye contract [sic].
     "All this because they have lost their power base. I keep asking myself, 'How far will they go?' They have stepped over the line of common decency, and the wounds are so deep they might never heal," Roquemore said.

OC Register, Sept 18, 1997

     In my view, the chief problem at Irvine Valley College is top administrative leadership—President Glenn Roquemore and Vice President of Instruction, Craig Justice.
     In part, the problem with these two is a problem of character.

     CHARACTER. Glenn has always managed a nice-guy veneer, evidently one made of plastic. But we must always remember who he really is—an unprincipled opportunist.
     At the start of the dismal “board majority” era—circa 1996—Glenn was a new faculty with strong administrative ambitions. That this is so is easily established. He was actively working with administration (my source: the person Glenn was working with: IVC’s then dean of instructional programs) to unseat Raghu Mathur as chair of Raghu and Glenn’s school. (Mathur had used unsavory means to retain an iron grip on the chairship for about a decade. Glenn wanted his turn.) Then, in April of 1997, to most everyone’s surprise, Mathur was chosen interim President of the college. Old timers will remember that, among faculty, no one of any quality wanted anything to do with the scheming and narcissistic Mathur. And so Mathur desperately sought “allies” among faculty.
     All of a sudden, Glenn became Mathur’s greatest supporter. Then, that May, he got the Accred Self-Study chair gig, despite Academic Senate objections. Nine months later, he hit the jackpot: Mathur named Glenn "acting" Vice President of Instruction, despite his utter lack of administrative experience.
     Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching!
     (Tea Partiers, please note that I do not object to faculty seeking administrative careers per se. My point concerns the manner in which Glenn became an administrator. For the meaning of "per se," consult a dictionary.)
     In more recent years, Glenn has set his sights on the Chancellorship. (One question we should ask ourselves is, what might he be willing to do to get that prize? What fresh infamy might emerge as a means to achieving his personal goal?)
     As President, Glenn has long protected familiar faculty abuses and excesses such as the notorious “large lecture” scam (scare most students away immediately after census; then pocket the big bucks teaching tiny "large lecture" classes) and various dubious arrangements designed to produce massive paychecks for relatively little work. No doubt, for years, he did that at the direction of Mathur, a notoriously lurid schemer from whom Glenn had no problem taking marching orders—until, that is, the fellow developed the unfortunate desire to actually make the decisions for his college. That ambition, which emerged in mid-decade, was perhaps the main source of ultimate Mathur/Roquemore conflict.
     As President, Glenn has always protected his (professor) wife from efforts by administrators to rein in her legendary “Listen, my hubby is the Prez” excesses. (Ask the administrators.)
     I’ll leave it at that, except to say that, for me, this circumstance—in which the worst of us are rewarded and protected—undermines feeling warm and fuzzy about one’s workplace more than anything else I can think of. It's a serious morale buster. ("Create a culture of mutual respect" my ass.)

Glenn, leading

     CLUELESS. Beyond the serious problem of character, there is the problem of Glenn’s legendary cluelessness. Observe his "leadership." (That is, try to find it.) I will not belabor the point. I will say only that, evidently, Glenn remains largely unaware that the college is actually run by a vindictive autocrat—his VPI.
     Craig Justice knows how to talk the talk of collegiality when he’s out making the rounds. He purrs. He smiles. But by all accounts—I’ve spoken with some former administrators and some faculty who have exchanged testy emails with the VPI—a different Craig often (i.e., routinely) emerges. That Craig barks and snarls unpleasantly. No purring. Biting.
     I don’t think he gives a damn what faculty or any other group think or want. I've read the emails. I've heard the eye-witness accounts. He's a seriously cynical and two-faced guy.
     Am I wrong? (More importantly: am I right?)

     I RECALL A COUPLE OF YEARS ago discovering, along with some of my colleagues, that the college was teaching (contract ed*) courses out at Crean Lutheran High School. We were amazed. As a long-time senator, I know that, if the idea of such a program had been run by the Academic Senate, senators would have noted its obvious hazards; they likely would have sought to nix the deal. But Craig (and Glenn?) ran this whole thing below the Senate’s radar. Nice. It's a pattern.
     So the program was launched sans faculty oversight or involvement—virtually all instructors were adjuncts, who typically stay out of senate business. Given the lack of oversight, a scandal could and did occur. Pretty soon, unqualified faculty were assigned courses by Crean officials (this meant, ultimately, that students could not receive credit for having taken them) and Crean officials were pressuring faculty (adjuncts) not to stray too far from Lutheran doctrine. Good grief!
     I commenced reporting the situation at Crean, and IVC administration went into damage control mode—as if my reporting was the damage. (I never got the sense that they understood a simple fact: the "damage" or "problem" was that they had f*cked up, and in characteristic fashion.) It became very clear, as I communicated with Craig and Glenn indirectly, via Wendy and my dean, what Craig and Glenn wanted: if at all possible, the whole matter should be neatly and quietly “fixed,” and the program should simply proceed. It was clear to me, too, that administration viewed my reporting as an assault on the college, not a case of (as I called it at the time) "watchdoggery."*
     In the meantime, I had communicated with some adjuncts who taught at Crean and they told me how bad things were. It wasn't just that the college was running classes at a Lutheran high school under the faculty's radar. No, there were some seriously hinky things going on, such as the pressuring of faculty not to teach against doctrine, etc. Good Lord!
     I wanted to report that hinkitude. But I was subjected to great pressure from administration to minimize my description of it in DtB. I cooperated, to an extent (I did not then report Crean's assigning econ courses to history faculty and its pressuring faculty to teach within doctrine—and other things that I have yet to mention in DtB!), though not to the extent desired.
     Now, at the time, if Craig and Co. had shown any indication of a desire to really do things right—for starters, to agree that, henceforth, such programs would at least be run past the Academic Senate—I would have been more cooperative. But it was clear, or so it seemed to me, that Craig had no such intention.
     Craig thinks faculty are morons. Sure, some of 'em are. (I'd start my search in B200.) But faculty know enough to avoid such fiascos as occurred at Crean. Craig doesn't understand that.

     TWO YEARS AGO, the “noise” about problems in the Early College Program got loud enough for even me to hear. I made some inquiries, and it became clear that, likely, there were severe and widespread problems in the program (high school administrators meddling with instruction, insisting on use of inadequate labs, etc.). But then we learned from our new senate president/cabinet that there was no reason for alarm, for committees were forming that would investigate matters, etc.
     Ah, but those committees were not Senate committees; they were essentially administration's committees that would likely be dominated by administrators. And so some of us made a big stink.
     Thus, plan B arose: the senate itself would form an independent committee that would attempt to assess the situation in the EC Program. And that’s what happened. (The committee ran a survey, and it revealed serious problems.)

     THE WALL. At about that time (I don’t have the relevant documents with me, so I hope I am remembering correctly), one of the Senate cabinet officers was essentially “fired” by the cabinet. The “fired” person was very upset about, among other things, how she had been "fired."
     It seems to me that that was the first time that the wall came up. "What's this?" I said.
     Evidently, the cabinet had met without that officer and then made a decision that, in view of her performance, she had to go; she was then informed of the committee’s decision. From the beginning, my concerns regarded, not the justice of asking her to resign, but the evidently brutal manner in which this was carried out. (Why hadn’t the president informed the officer of dissatisfaction with her performance so that she could resign quietly, sans cabinet action—and sans a creepy secret meeting?) When senators (perhaps it was only me; I don’t recall) pressed for details, the wall came up. As I recall, members of the cabinet revealed nothing about the meeting.
     That was something new.
     I spoke with some cabinet members in private, and it became clear that some (at least one) of them were very unhappy with the manner in which this firing occurred. Nevertheless, they said, the President had asked them to say nothing about the deliberations during the meeting, and so they refrained from doing so, at least in public.
     I tried to suggest that this kind of action was ugly and unnecessary; it was a bad precedent. My efforts seemed to go nowhere.

     THE LETTER. Not long after, I wrote the President (privately), noting (as I recall) three ways in which, it seemed to me, the senate was “dropping the ball,” failing in its role to hold administration to account. I cited the Crean fiasco and I cited the initial approach to the EC problem (namely, the administrator-controlled committee); and there was a third thing that I honestly can’t recall. (Perhaps it was the “firing” business.) The President—who, I should add, is a friend—responded with great (and, it seemed to me, hysterical) defensiveness and, soon, after she shared the letter with the cabinet, I heard from defensive (and, again, sometimes hysterical) cabinet members as well.

     OK, HERE'S THE THING. My complaint then and my complaint now are essentially the same. As a Senate, we are dropping the ball. I firmly believe that top administration is highly objectionable in the manner earlier described (with emphasis on the VPI). Essentially, we're being blown off. But it is clear, I think, that the Academic Senate President does not view administration in that light. Not at all.
     That’s a problem.

     LET ME COUNT THE WAYS. There are, of course, several ways in which I could be mistaken.
     One is that administration is not the Loutish Thing I have depicted. Glenn isn’t really (so) clueless and opportunistic. Craig is not nearly so crafty or two-faced.
     Another is that, though administration is indeed that Loutish Thing, LDA and the cabinet understand this and, contrary to my “ball droppage” thesis, they are taking appropriate steps.
     “Roy, we really know what we’re doing.”
     Are there other ways? Let me know.
     In all honesty, if I am mistaken, I would like to be persuaded of that. Please show me the error of my ways.
     As you can see, in my view, the fundamental issue here is not LDA. The Senate should hold administration to account. It should fight the unworkable EC Program. It should at least express strong reservations about the Crean arrangement. It should demand that faculty always be consulted about new instructional programs. It should demand more clarity about ATEP—another potential set of new educational programs. It should shine the spotlight on what administration does (especially when no one is looking) and demand explanations. It cannot do its job (in my view) if the President and/or the cabinet do not acknowledge the extent to which administration blows off faculty.
     So, that's the logic of the situation, in my opinion.
     I recognize that I could be mistaken.
     Again, please show me how I’m wrong, if such is the case. —BvT

* * *

     …By March of '98, Board members explained that they were considering a proposal to officially adopt the hiring procedure used to hire Mathur. In an interview for IVC's Voice, trustee Dorothy Fortune opined that the proposed procedure would be "more inclusive than ever." Said trustee John Williams: "This is a much fairer process" (3/5/98). On the other side, in a letter to the Times, trustee Milchiker explained that the new procedures "will invalidate a long-standing collegiate district policy which offers all college constituencies a voice in the selection of administration. This subversion of the hiring process comes at a crucial time"--given the ongoing administrative exodus.
     Eventually, the Accrediting Commission (ACCJC) cited the new procedures as evidence of the board's micromanagement and subversion of shared governance, and thus they were abandoned. This, however, did not end the [Board Majority’s] manipulations of administrative hiring. When Glenn Roquemore didn't survive the final cut in the screening for the permanent VP of Instruction position at IVC, trustee accusations of unfairness again surfaced, and so, again overturning the search committee's decision, Roquemore was interviewed at the second level…. 

—From the Dissenter’s Dictionary, 12/99

     *Because the Crean courses were listed in IVC's schedule of classes—a big mistake that—in my early reporting, I did not recognize that the program was a case of "contract ed," a fact of some relevance, I suppose. On that basis, Craig and Co. took the attitude that I had f*cked up by failing to note this circumstance.
     A typical Craig red herring.
     In fact, the real issue here was, first, that Craig and Co. were pursuing this program without faculty oversight and that, consequently, seriously hinky things were going on at Crean—e.g., that unqualified faculty were being assigned courses, etc. See HERE for details.

In defense of Lisa Davis Allen

     I have always conceived of DtB as a place for honest discussion. As always, I invite those of you who disagree with anything we say on these pages to explain how we are mistaken, if that is your view. Just make your case. There’s no need for threats (see below) and ad hominems (my point isn't valid because I'm "bored"?). Just make your case, and it will appear here. —BvT aka RB

Anonymous said...
     … And I believe it is unfair to characterize the AS President as someone who does not tolerate dissent. That is simply NOT true. This Blog has done a great service to faculty and staff over the years by keeping everyone informed and pointing out injustices from the previous district administration. Now that "the barbarians" are gone, we run the danger of self-destruction, "imploding," and eventually starting to look like those we were successful in getting rid of. Mistakes have been made regarding EC and ATEP. I believe honest steps are being taken to correct them. If they don't work then we have no one else to blame but ourselves. EC should have been faculty driven. It wasn't. Same thing, to a large extent, with ATEP. But we do have a chance now to make them work. What doesn't work is to demonize others. No one is perfect around here, not even the writer of these words. Let's pull together, find out what's not working, make it work if possible. If not, let's get rid of it. But let's not self destruct in the process. I hope we are better than those we got rid of. Let's prove it to them and to ourselves.
     —6:55 AM, September 02, 2011

Anonymous said...
     BvT, this is the time for faculty to be united and on the same front. I understand you're on sabbatical and probably getting bored, but please be mindful of your colleagues' feelings. Don't forget that LDA was responsible for the hiring of two new librarians. She has done many many good things for the College. Let's be civil to each other.
     —7:21 AM, September 02, 2011

Anonymous said...
     I think it is also possible to be a reasonably good leader who does good things (librarians, etc) - and one that still promotes a problematic process and policies that benefit a few. I actually think this is usually what happens when people step up to lead. It's hard not to get trapped between pleasing your constituency, yourself - and the powers that be who may promise you pretty things. After awhile a condescending attitude may or may not develop. That kind of attitude is unfortunate - and yes, uncivil too. A sense that because one is "in the know," one knows better. Someone needs to take a poli sci class. This is classic.
     I just want to say, I DO appreciate people who sacrifice themselves in the senate and the union to lead. But just because I appreacite them doesn't mean I can't also criticize them.
     —10:18 AM, September 02, 2011

Anonymous said...
     I do appreciate what Lisa has done. She has improved the relationship between the senate and admin. But at what cost? Roger is a goner, not that I care.
     —11:36 AM, September 02, 2011

Anonymous said...
     Lisa has done some great things for Fine Arts, and we are 100% behind her. Yes, I endorse Lisa for Dean of Fine Arts.
     Good riddance, Eyeore.
     —11:52 AM, September 02, 2011

Anonymous said...
     Exactly. Lisa has done great things for fine arts. A senate president should do great things for all faculty - that's what Wendy did. You couldn't say she did great things for Social Sciences. She didn't. She represented in the best sense of the word. Lisa used her position as president to benefit Fine Arts and to become their next dean.
     —11:57 AM, September 02, 2011

Anonymous [Traci] said...
     Characterizing LDA as dictator is absurd. I was on the cabinet under many different Senate presidents and LDA relies on her cabinet for advice, encourages vigorous debate and opposition, and listens to the advice given. While no leader is perfect, LDA works hard on behalf of faculty and puts in enormous time, energy, good will and heart into her service to the college. Only in a place like IVC, where we've had such a toxic history with admins, would the desire to move up the career ladder be considered such a source of suspicion and derision. It is both uncivil, irresponsible and, in my opinion, skirting slanderous, to characterize the senate's modus operandi in print and on the web in the way you have done so. Who will want to step up to the plate and follow LDA as Senate president if there is a risk of being pilloried in this blog? It is hurtful and demoralizing to treat well-intentioned leaders they way they're treated here. It's appallingly damaging to our college.
     Signed, openly, Traci Fahimi (former Senate Recorder, Vice President and President).
     —12:00 PM, September 02, 2011

Anonymous [Traci] said...
     Also, Roy, I suggest you consider your own advice, printed under "post a comment": "Please do stay north of the merest of rumors, especially sordid ones." The situation with this blog and it's role (past and present) is rife with sad irony. Who shall hold your feet to the fire and insist that journalistic integrity and standards are followed in the printed word? Bloggers are not exempt from standards...or lawsuits...and under some circumstances may be even more vulnerable to them than "regular journalists". Be careful to preserve the collegiality of our college and be careful about crossing the line into damaging a person's reputation publicly through unfounded innuendos, speculations and assertions. What you print then opens the door up to the even more wild, speculative, accusatory and damaging comments. It's like unleashing a train wreck.
     Also from Traci Fahimi—again openly—because I'm not saying anything here I wouldn't say to any colleague on campus face to face.
     —12:45 PM, September 02, 2011

BvT responds to Fahimi:
     You wrote: "be careful about crossing the line into damaging a person's reputation publicly through unfounded innuendos, speculations and assertions."
     OK, if you accuse me of such things, you had better back it up. Where have I engaged in "unfounded innuendos, speculations and assertions"? Please be specific.
     —2:25 PM

Anonymous said...
     I agree that trying to work up the ladder is commendable. But, it does put one in a tough position at times. WG did it and was open and forthcoming.
     This is a place for opinion. Sometimes we don't agree, but we are free to voice our opinions. Thank you, bvt.
     —1:16 PM, September 02, 2011

Traci said...
     The speculation and assertion that LDA dictates that the cabinet engage in no public dissent is unfounded. It is your opinion, possibly gleaned second hand from observations of the semester's first senate meeting. That's speculation, hearsay, and opinion, not fact. It is reporting and embellishing other people's speculative perceptions. The only way you personally could know or assert to know what you claim about the cabinet's modus operandus, would be to sit on the cabinet yourself or get it firsthand from someone who does (which you did not, because it isn't how LDA or the cabinet operate).
--Traci
     --2:05 PM, September 02, 2011

B. von Traven said...
     Traci, I’m terribly busy right now (I’ve got to run), and so this will have to be quick.
     You say that I speculate and assert “that LDA dictates that the cabinet engage in no public dissent.”
     No doubt you’ll correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t believe I ever asserted that. Rather, I suggested that there are some decisions and deliberations about which it is clear that cabinet members have agreed not to discuss the details in public. For instance, this occurred with regard to the Courses Chair decision. I assert also that this arrangement is odd and questionable and contrary to transparency and openness. It is so even if there are many other decisions upon which this stricture is not applied.
     I am not “reporting and embellishing other people’s speculative perceptions.” No, I am reporting my own perceptions at senate meetings over the past two years. I exclude recent meetings, since I have not attended them (I’m on sabbatical).
     Have there been times when (some) senators sought an account of cabinet deliberations (concerning some matter) and the cabinet remained mute, expressing frustration with their eyes and faces? I have seen that. It's a pretty plain thing, not really a matter of interpretation. (Have others seen that on occasion?) I don’t like it.
     I have spoken with cabinet members in private. As I recall, “some” have said to me that they were asked not to discuss certain (not all) deliberations, the idea being that, if the committee agrees to action X, then all members should be on board with X publicly.
     It is possible that something of the sort was explained even at open senate meetings. I don’t recall. But this rationale was given to me.
     I do not speculate irresponsibly. I do not engage in "unfounded innuendos, speculations and assertions." It is possible that I should make a greater effort to be clearer about what I'm saying. Perhaps you should do the same.
     --7:19 PM, September 02, 2011

Let's hold their feet to the fire

"I've got a question"

     The Irvine Valley College Academic Senate meets today.
     Our senate has a proud history, as you know. For instance, just a few years ago, IVC’s Senate, along with Saddleback’s, took the district to court regarding Mathur & the Board’s obnoxious unilateral changes to the faculty hiring policy, contrary to the plain language of the law.
     That we, an Academic Senate, litigated was unprecedented. The process entailed many stages, many ups and downs, and took years. We stuck with it. And we prevailed. Big time. Our rights and the rights of senates throughout the state were restored.
     OPENNESS. One of the things I always loved about the old battlin' IVC senate was the open nature of the communication between Senators and the Senate leadership. At Senate meetings, a senator would never get the sense that he or she wasn't being told what was really happening. Everything was laid out in the open for all to see—albeit some of this openness required, um, body language. (Wendy G. deserves much of the credit for this level of openness—and, of course, for leadership re the aforementioned litigation.)
     In the last couple of years, however, things have changed at the IVC Academic Senate.
      I want to focus on one of those changes.
     Nowadays, during our biweekly Rep Council meetings, there are two groups in the room: the senators and the cabinet, a manifestly tight-lipped bunch. It seems pretty clear that the “new” Senate Prez sometimes* tells her cabinet that, once the decision is made (in cabinet), everybody’s got to be behind it 100% and to not undermine it.
     At times, this stricture obviously makes some cabinet members uncomfortable. Their eyes communicate loudly: “I’d love to say something now but I just can’t!”
     Really? You can’t be open about the pros and cons of whatever-it-is? Frankly, I don’t know why cabinet members put up with this rule, whatever it is. Most of them were around during the glory days, when things were very open, and the senate nevertheless managed to keep administrators’ feet to the fire.
      The “new” Academic Senate’s less-than-transparent ways have bred distrust. “It” does things—the recent opening of the CAFÉ (only full-time faculty invited!) is a good example—that seem wrong and foolhardy. One awaits an explanation. There is silence.
     We’ve got enough of that coming from college administration, which, nowadays, does as it pleases with impunity and without justification or explanation.
     Let's hold their feet to the fire.

     (I should mention that I have been a senator—and at times a senate officer—for many years. This semester, however, I am on sabbatical. —RB aka BvT)

Agenda items of note (Meeting in BSTIC 101; 2:00 p.m.):

Item 4 - Senate Approval of Curriculum for 2012-2013 Catalog
Item 5 - Program Reviews 2011-2012
Item 7 - Board Policies and Administrative Regulations
Item 9 - ACCJC Recommendation Response Report
Item 10 - Full Time Tenure-Track Faculty Hiring Priority List Process
Item 12 - IVC and ATEP
Item 13 - SLO Coordinator and Liaison
Item 14 - Faculty Contract

MEANWHILE...

College professor allegedly led motorcycle gang, drug ring (LA Times)

A Cal State San Bernardino professor who allegedly led a chapter of the Devils Diciples motorcycle gang was charged Thursday with heading up a methamphetamine drug ring that involved several other dealers. [Updated at 1 p.m.: The motorcycle gang intentionally misspells "disciples" in its name, as can be seen in the jackets above.] ¶ Stephen Kinzey, a 43-year-old professor of kinesiology, is considered a fugitive and is being aggressively sought by authorities, Sheriff Rod Hoops said at a morning news conference at sheriff’s headquarters in San Bernardino. Nine others involved in the drug ring have been arrested since Friday, he said….

*A comment by a member (or former member) of the cabinet suggested that I needed to be more precise about my meaning here. (So I added this word.) I do not suppose that LDA in general demands cabinet member tight-lippedness. My point is that, evidently, at times, she has asked for that. If so, it is enough to make my point about openness and transparency. That is, in my view, this should never (or nearly never) be asked or demanded of cabinet members.