The "civility" initiative: just saying "no" to wider participation?

Part 3 of a series

     Since Friday (i.e., here and here), I’ve posted a series of pieces on IVC’s “[in]civility initiative,” which, as we’ve seen, given what emerged during the December workshop, should probably be called the “bully [bullies?] at IVC” initiative—combined with “[lack of] transparency” and “poor communication” initiatives.
     Last week, IVC Vice President of Instruction, Craig Justice, distributed a “report” concerning this initiative composed by facilitator John Spevak (of consulting firm College Brain Trust). He says he wants us all (faculty and other members of the IVC community, I suppose) to read it.

     The REPORT comprises

• An account of the genesis and planning of the workshop re “Civility” held in mid-December
• Attachment 1: Responses to Questions Posed during the Irvine Valley College Workshop on Civility and Mutual Respect
• Attachment 2: Informal Evaluation of December 16 Workshop (from unsigned index cards completed by participants at workshop’s end)
• Attachment 3: Spevak’s initial draft of a possible IVC statement on civility and mutual respect
• Attachment 4: Spevak’s draft of possible items which could be included within an IVC action plan on civility

     Thus far, my posts have concerned the first three elements (up through attachment 2).
     Attachment 3 is, again, Spevak’s initial draft of a possible IVC statement on civility and mutual respect.

BUT WAIT!

     That Spevak composed this “statement” suggests that Roquemore and Co. do not plan to throw a wider net over the IVC community to acquire input—about the episodes of incivility (and poor communication, etc.) that, evidently, inspired this initiative (with the help of the Accreds).
     Yesterday, I noted that, among the suggestions for improving the “workshop” provided by participants was participation of others (students, more faculty, et al.) in the initiative. That is, at least some participants suggested that the process should seek greater representation of the IVC community and its groups.
     I guess Glenn is just saying “no” to that suggestion.

     Here’s attachment 3:

     This is a concise statement drafted by workshop facilitator John Spevak, which incorporates those ideas and suggestions which the participants in the December 16, 2011 IVC Workshop on Civility and Mutual Respect seemed to consider most significant. This draft can be considered a first step in Irvine Valley College’s possible development of a statement on civility and mutual respect.

Irvine Valley College: Statement on Civility and Mutual Respect

     Irvine Valley College supports a culture which encourages and sustains civility and mutual respect. Within its commitment to excellence and academic freedom, the college values the dignity of each person, frequent and accurate communication, transparent decision making, and the importance of treating all members of the college community with honesty and respect. In its ongoing pursuit of knowledge and truth, the college aspires to sustain an environment that honors empathy, interdependence, professionalism, constructive discourse, and trust balanced with accountability.
     IVC expects all members of the college community to treat others as they wish to be treated, to help others succeed, to take responsibility for their own actions, and to fulfill the duties of their jobs. All members of the college community are also expected to seek the truth, check the facts, correct false assumptions, and prevent the spread of false rumors. They are also expected to value their own worth as persons and to confront incivility, whether directed at themselves or others, with respectful but firm assertiveness.
     IVC considers it unacceptable for members of the college community to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or bully others or to engage in retaliation or retribution. It also considers as unacceptable slander and intentional distortions of the truth, whether oral or written. While attacking ideas is encouraged, attacking people—either in person or electronically—is unacceptable. The college also recognizes that failing to fulfill one’s professional responsibilities often contributes to an uncivil environment.
     When encountering incivility, members of the IVC community are encouraged to confront it respectfully but directly and to intervene appropriately in situations where others are inflicted with uncivil behavior. Supervisors should call attention to uncivil behaviors of persons they supervise, and when necessary, note such behaviors within with the processes of evaluation or progressive discipline.
     IVC is committed to sustaining a culture of civility and mutual respect by expressing its commitment to civility in a variety of college publications, including employee handbooks; by communicating the importance of civility in orientations to new employees; by sponsoring projects and activities that bring people together in a spirit of hospitality, service, appreciation, and camaraderie; by identifying root causes of incivility; and by using informal processes of mediation designed to resolve interpersonal conflicts before they become significant. [END]

     Let’s turn to the last element of the report: attachment 4.
     Not only are Roquemore and Co. moving ahead with IVC’s “statement” regarding civility, they’re moving ahead with an “action plan.

Former trustee Don Wagner knows about incivility

     Here’s attachment 4:

This is a draft, written by facilitator John Spevak, of possible elements within an IVC Action Plan on Civility and Mutual Respect (collected from ideas generated within the December 16, 2011 IVC Workshop on Civility and Mutual Respect):

• Identify a group of persons representing the IVC community, using as its core the Working Group on Civility, to implement the ideas generated at the December 16 workshop in order to develop and nurture an IVC culture of civility and mutual respect
• Create a civility statement, obtain approvals from key entities (e.g., academic senate, classified senate), and possibly include it in the IVC catalogue
• Send recommendations related to civility and mutual respect to the District for its related new or revised policies and procedures
• Create an informal mediation process
• Schedule informal social and service gatherings and activities throughout the year
• Send a report of the workshop to the accreditation officer for possible inclusion in an accreditation follow-up report
• Create sections in IVC written materials based on the proposed catalog statement, including college orientation documents and handbooks for faculty, classified, and managers
• Gather the action plan group at the end of 2012 to determine whether the culture of civility has indeed been developed and incidents of incivility have decreased

     Item 3 on this list is interesting. It is the suggestion to send “recommendations related to civility and mutual respect to the District for its related new or revised policies and procedures.”
     Just what sort of policy are they talking about? Something that can be wielded against dissenters?

* * *

THREE CONCERNS:

     A brief observation: I can identify three concerns with regard to what I’ve called the “civility initiative”:

• THE ACCREDS’ “COMMUNICATION” ISSUE: Issues about communication, etc., that are being pursued by the ACCJC in the accreditation process. (IVC is expected to make yet another progress report in October.)
• VICTIMS OF BULLYING: Issues about bullying coming from members of the IVC community. [BUT WHY WON'T ANYONE NAME THE BULLY?]
• FREE SPEECH & DISSENT: Issues regarding free speech and dissent—the worry that, as in the past, our college and district might attempt to thwart or silence critics of administration/trustees/leadership by wielding policies and “statements” against them.

     Correct me if I’m wrong. Are these the issues? Have I formulated them correctly? Have I left any out?
     My next post will focus on the last concern: the threat to dissent and free speech.