"I'm a very good history teacher," he said. "I know my subject. I love my subject. All I want to do is teach it."
4/16/95
OC Register
Letters to the editor
History and the Holocaust
Education: Foothill teacher demeans the profession
[FRIEDMAN:]
As a retired history teacher, I have had the experience of running across several biased and even prejudiced teachers, such as Foothill High School's Steven Frogue seems to be ["Teacher's view of holocaust stirs furor," Metro news, April 4].
The very fact that Frogue's classroom remarks stir up so much racial and religious controversy makes a sham of his claim, "I'm a very good history teacher. I know my subject. I love my subject. All I want to do is teach it." If he were such a "good" teacher, his remarks would not result in so much misunderstanding and disagreement among students and parents.
A "good" history teacher does not seriously rely on or even consider the views of an organization such as the "Institute for Historical Review." This organization is apparently primarily interested in promoting its hatred of Jews and the irrational twisting of history to suit this agenda. This organization's denial of the holocaust--a historical even witnessed and testified to by thousands living today--makes a mockery of its claim to be "historical."
Teachers and students face many difficulties and hazards in the public schools today. To continue to employ a teacher who, if not prejudiced, is certainly biased to the point of creating such attacks upon the racial and religious sensitivities of his students is not in keeping with the best our teachers have to offer.
—Irving E. Friedman, Laguna Niguel
 |
| Saddleback's Curt McLendon often defended the union's tactics |
[THE IHR:]
We are not 'Holocaust deniers.'
[RAVEN:]
Once again, the Register has inaccurately portrayed the Institute for Historical Review. The IHR cannot be "the nation's foremost center of holocaust denial" because we do not deny the Holocaust. We acknowledge that a great many Jews were killed and otherwise perished during World War II. What we dispute, among other things, is the familiar "6 million" estimate of Jewish victims, claims that the Nazis had a plan or policy to exterminate Europe's Jews, and allegations that the Nazis used gas chambers for mass murder.
Also, the IHR has no "members." What we do have is subscribers to our periodical, The Journal of Historical Review.
—Greg Raven
Newport Beach
(Mr. Raven is associate editor of "The Journal of Historical Review")
4/20/95
Irvine Valley College Voice
Trustee denies holocaust, according to former students
By Ked Francis
Staff Writer, Voice
Despite repeated denials by Trustee Steven Frogue, former students of the trustee claim in an April 4 Orange County Register report that he teaches a revisionist version of the Holocaust and claims the killing of 6 million Jews did not occur. According to Foothill High School student Emily Hoffman, Frogue "decided the Holocaust was made up." Frogue told his World Cultures class "the Jews made it up to make people feel sorry for them," according to Hoffman, who was quoted in the Register. "He said it was more like sixty people that got killed, rather than 6 million."
Other high school students of Frogue's say he used racially derogatory terms in class, referring to Asians as "yellow people," Latinos as "brown people" and African Americans as "negras."
Frogue denies the students' claims. "I don't even know most of the kids quoted in the article," Frogue said. "The Register reporter was inaccurate in everything he wrote, from my hometown to the spelling of students' names."
Frogue admitted using racially sensitive terms, but claims they were to show the racist attitudes of others. "I use the term 'negra' to explain southern racist views during the civil rights movement. I quoted a World War II sermon that used the phrase 'yellow belly japs'' to show racist attitudes in wartime," Frogue said.
Questions regarding Frogue's views on the Holocaust first arose when he harshly criticized the Anti-Defamation League and questioned its role in an IVC course on the Holocaust. At a January 23 Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustee meeting Frogue alleged that the ADL has conducted a "massive espionage apparatus against thousands of law abiding American citizens."
Frogue continued his assault on the ADL at the Feb. 27 board meeting, but was challenged by Trustee Harriet Walther, who all but called Frogue a Holocaust denier.
In a March 23 follow-up interview with The Voice, Frogue suggested that a notorious Holocaust denial group, the Institute for Historical Review, should be allowed to "enter the debate" regarding the Holocaust, while labeling claims he denied the Holocaust as "an obscenity."
Finally, in the Register article Frogue questions whether 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, drawing distinctions between "people who were actually killed, . . . people who actually died, . . . [and] people who were actually put in the gas chambers."
Frogue's views echo those of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), which claims in its publications that "there was no German program to exterminate Europe's Jews, that numerous claims of mass killings in 'gas chambers' are false, and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration."
Richard Prystowsky, the IVC professor whose course on the Holocaust drew Frogue's attention in January, said he is concerned about Frogue's comments that the IHR should enter "the debate" regarding the Holocaust. "What debate? There is no legitimate debate on the phenomenological reality of the final solution," [said] Prystowsky. "There simply is not."
As for Frogue, he still expects to resume teaching at Foothill High School next fall, and continues to deny making the statements his students say he did. "But there are too many questions about the Holocaust for it to be judged a certainty in all aspects," Frogue said.
Frogue called the controversy over the Register article "a bit of a nightmare, and all for telling the truth."
Mel Mermelstein, a Holocaust survivor from Huntington Beach, suggested a simple solution to the Frogue controversy: "Let the people who elected him take care of the problem."
 |
| Behind union tactics--Michael Channing among others |
4/20/95
Irvine Valley College Voice
LETTERS
GREENSPAN
ADL asserts Frogue made 'false and malicious statements' Dear Editor,
Steven Frogue, a trustee of the Saddleback Community College District, has made false and malicious statements about the Anti-Defamation League and others. While we will not respond specifically to his outrageous charges, we want to present an accurate picture of the ADL.
The Anti-Defamation League was founded over 80 years ago to "secure justice and fair treatment for all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination and ridicule against any sect or body of citizens." Throughout its history, the ADL has been in the forefront of efforts to protect minority groups and secure constitutional guarantees of free speech, equality and freedom of religion.
The ADL's model hate crimes legislation has been enacted at the state and federal levels. These laws, and the ADL's training program is combating hate crimes, helping law enforcement officials respond to violence against minority individuals. The ADL's support for the federal Religious Freedom Restoration ACT was instrumental in guaranteeing free exercise rights for all individuals.
The ADL also monitors anti-Semitic, racist and extremist groups and exposes their bigotry to the light of public scrutiny. Publications on such issues as neo-Nazi Skinheads, terrorism and private militias, have served to educate the Jewish community, law enforcement officials, educators, public officials and the larger American public. The ADL's report, "Embattled Bigots: A Split in the Ranks of the Holocaust Denial Movement," serves as an analysis update on developments regarding the leading Holocaust deniers in this country, including the Institute for Historical Review.
These reports are not published to silence those whose views differ from the ADL, as some critics have asserted. The ADL believes that the extremist ideology of bigots is best countered by an educated society. Therefore, our reports detail the racism, the anti-Semitism, the terrorist goals, and the denial of the Holocaust. In addition, the reports are an exercise of the ADL's own First Amendment rights to present information to the public and to voice the ADL's views and opinions. The ADL publications are recognized by public officials, the media, law enforcement and others as credible and informative.
Steven Frogue has voiced fabricated allegations about the ADL, irresponsibly implicated individuals in criminal activities without a shred of evidence and attempted to silence his adversaries by intimidation and smear tactics. The ADL's view of the First Amendment is that it protects Mr. Frogue's right to speak; apparently he would not extend the same protection to the ADL.
Sincerely,
Joyce Greenspan,
ADL Regional Director
Orange County/Long Beach Office
5/3/95
Case Closure Memorandum
The California Fair Political Practices Commission sends a "Case Closure Memorandum" to Trustee Harriett Walther concerning the charge that she had violated "conflict of interest" provisions. [5/3/95]
(The faculty union--on behalf of Frogue, Williams, Fortune and Davis--secured this document and quoted from it selectively and deceptively in fliers and ads (see) during the 1996 trustees' campaign. What follows is the key section of the "Disposition sheet" that the union conveniently failed to reveal in "exposing" the existence of the CFPPC document:)
However, we have determined that prosecution for this violation is not warranted based on several mitigating factors which include:
1) the vote to approve the ACCT contract was unanimous and apparently would have been approved without Ms. Walther's vote;
2) it appears that Ms. Walther did not believe that she had a conflict of interest with regard to the ACCT contract, and had she known, it appears she would have abstained from the decision;
3) as a telephone research consultant, she did not stand to gain any commission or bonus as a result of the contract;
4) all other members of the SCCD involved in the ACCT contract were informed by Ms. Walther that she had been employed by ACCT, and
5) Ms. Walther has no prior enforcement history with the Commission.
[Note: among those who voted for the ACCT contract: Frogue and Williams.]
 |
| Mr. Fennel of Saddleback defends union tactics |
5/11/95
The IVC Voice, Your Turn:
Trustee Steven Frogue and the Institute for Historical Review
by Roy Bauer
Steven Frogue, a member of the Saddleback Community College Board of Trustees and a Foothill High School history instructor, recently expressed interest in the publications of the foremost Holocaust denial organization in the U.S.: the Institute for Historical Review.
In an interview with The Voice, Frogue says:
"There is a group, right here in Orange County, called the Institute for Historical Review...[T]hey have raised questions about [the Holocaust]. I've looked at some of their publications, kind of strange and definitely new, I've never seen anything like it before. There's somebody that wants to engage in the debate about the Holocaust."
Frogue goes on to suggest that the IHR's headquarters were bombed and its research burned by enemies of the organization. This alleged fact leads Frogue to wonder if the IHR is onto something:
"Then I say, 'wait a minute,' is it maybe they have uncovered some stuff that the public should know?"
Oddly it does not occur to Frogue that the IHR bombing can be explained in ways that do not assume that the bombers sought to suppress truths. (Mightn't they have sought to suppress lies?) Contrary to Mr. Frogue, the fact (if it is a fact) that the IHR was bombed by some of its enemies does not provide a reason to respect IHR "evidence."
Do we have any reason to believe that the IHR has good evidence for its revisionist themes? Do we have any reason to take the IHR seriously? The organization's central idea is the denial of what is now understood as the Holocaust. Though the IHR asserts that it does not deny the Holocaust, in truth, it promulgates works that in essence do exactly that. Further, it has adopted Austin J. App's "incontrovertible assertions," including the thesis that the Third Reich's plan for solving the "Jewish problem" was emigration, not annihilation.
The first thing to note, then, is that the IHR denies what common sense affirms. Insofar as it does so, it is in about the same intellectual league as the Flat Earth Society. That the Holocaust revisionists promoted by the IHR suffer from serious lapses in thinking is indicated in other ways as well. For instance, revisionists are oblivious to the difficulties that attend grand conspiracy theories of the sort they embrace. No one doubts that, in the course of human history, secret plots have occasionally been carried out; but it is implausible to assert, as Holocaust revisionists do, that thousands of unerring and loyal conspirators have managed perfectly to execute a series of massive scams on the world. Such assertions defy reason.
The common sense deficit in revisionist "research" is often matched by an honesty deficit. For instance, the editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review, Mark Weber, has written a leaflet for the IHR called "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts." In it, he writes that "America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A. Leuchter, carefully examined [Auschwitz'] supposed 'gas chambers' in Poland and concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically impossible."
Sounds impressive. But, as Deborah Lipstadt reveals in her book Denying the Holocaust, Fred Leuchter, Weber's "expert," is not an engineer and has no education in engineering; indeed, he has been compelled by his home state of Massachusetts to refrain from presenting himself as an engineer. Further, Lipstadt can find no evidence that Leuchter has ever build a gas chamber. How, then, can it be that Leuchter is "the foremost specialist on the design and installation of gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals," as Weber claims?
That the editor of the IHR's journal is willing in this way to play with the facts (or, alternatively, is capable of overlooking such important facts) rightly causes us to doubt the reliability of the IHR.
So, too, do the efforts of the IHR's founder--Willis Carto--to disguise the organization's relationship with other organizations. The IHR insists that it is an independent entity dedicated only to uncovering the truth about history. Yet, in 1988, the United States Court of Appeals rejected an attempt by the IHR and various plainly racist and anti-Semitic entities to present themselves as unrelated. What many of these organizations have in common is the involvement of Willis Carto, who has a long history of anti-Semitic and racist activities, including the promotion of a scheme in the mid-fifties to return all blacks to Africa. Such backgrounds are typical among the central characters of the IHR saga.
Can we rely on the likes of Willis Carto and Mark Weber to support honest and objective historical research? Surely we cannot. We reasonably suspect that at least some of the historical "investigations" that they sponsor or author are liable to be committed more to a political agenda than to objectivity and truth. That suspicion combined with the evident dishonesty or incompetence of much revisionist "research" and the patent implausibility of revisionist conspiracy theories force this conclusion upon us: that we err when we fail to discriminate between the IHR and reliable research organizations.
This, of course, is precisely the error that Mr. Frogue commits. That Frogue, a member of a college board of trustees, does not perceive his error is disturbing. Bauer is a philosophy instructor and the Humanities Department Chair
 |
Faculty Union VP, Sharon MacMillan
|
1996
7/16/96
STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER
FORTUNE
SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
TRUSTEE AREA 3
DOROTHY FORTUNE
AGE 56
OCCUPATION: RETIRED COLLEGE ENGLISH AND HISTORY TEACHER
(Signed by Dorothy Fortune, July 16, 1996)
10/96
Notorious "suppressed evidence" FA flier
Flier distributed by Faculty Association to faculty (mailboxes), 10/96 [GRAPHIC]
(Attacks Harriett Walther; fails to cite portion of CFPPC document that essentially exonerates her)
10/6/96
Frogue defends himself against charges, at FA
(A letter presented at a special FA meeting arranged to allay concerns of some union members; see C. Bander.)
The Holocaust was one of the greatest tragedies in human history. It represents the outermost limits in man's bestiality towards fellow human beings. It should be continually studied, and held up as a prime example of the consequence of hate. We must never forget the sufferings and deaths of so many millions of innocents.
An April 4, 1994, article in the "Orange County Register" quoted four students saying things that I had supposedly said in my classes two years before. The quotes were absolutely and totally false. I never could or never would have said such cruel, vicious and untruthful things. If I had said anything even remotely akin to such sentiments, there would and should have been a storm of protest. There was none because the events described in the "Register" article never occurred.
The manner in which the reporter tried to put words into my mouth, and into the mouths of three colleagues leave little doubt in my mind as to how he elicited such comments from these young women. My students, fellow teachers, parents, administrators, friends and neighbors, know that this article was a smear.
I gave a full explanation of this article to my fellow trustees of the Saddleback Community College District at our April public meeting. I was invited to appear before the Orange County Human Relations Commission, at my request, and recounted all details of the event and provided the record to them. I forwarded all records of the event and provided the record to them. I forwarded all records of the event to both the Southern California and national headquarters of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). They sent a representative to meet with me in Tustin, and I provided him with full details.
My being assigned to the on campus suspension program at Foothill High School had nothing to do with this controversy. A social science teacher with high quality classroom control skills was required to strengthen a very much needed program at our school. I did an excellent job in that position, but appealed the decision under our teachers contract because I wanted to teach history the next year. While I appreciated their confidence in my ability to strengthen this suspension program, however, I still wanted to teach history.
Because of the article's obvious misrepresentation, it caused little or no concern at our school or within our educational community. One parent request for information about the controversy came the following year (after the article) and was fully answered. Not a single parent ever contacted me directly.
I am prepared to answer any and all questions about the matter from any quarter.
That a single trustee of the Saddleback Community College District would, for political purposes, attempt to use that untruthful and discredited article is absolutely in keeping with my experience with that person for four years. The board has caught her in numerous lies and deceptions over the entire period. That she should be engaging in such "McCarthy" tactics is perfectly in keeping with her character and past actions.
Her relationships with me and other trustees were exacerbated by an official investigation leading to a letter of reprimand by the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding this trustee for her conflict of interest.
While I don't pretend to fathom all this person's motivation, it does appear that her being passed over for President of the Board of Trustees and having been caught by the Fair Political Practices Commission has served to engender in her a grudge against all other Trustees.
If you wish to pursue this matter further, you can contact Don Zimbalist at Saddleback College through the Liberal Arts Division. — Steven J. Frogue
10-6-96
Union Newsletter, October, ’96
Election Update
Trustee [Walther] Launches an Attack on Faculty Salaries and Academic Freedom
WANTS TO CUT FACULTY SALARIES
Statements by Walther's hand-picked candidates indicate that her group wants to cut faculty salaries and to instigate a different faculty evaluation system which CTA has declared to be a violation of the contract and a threat to academic freedom.
Walther is not seeking to improve the quality of education. She is seeking to take SCCD down with her in her blaze of destructive behavior which has been so widely noticed during the past few years.
For some time Walther has expressed hatred, not only for Saddleback faculty but also for the other board members who are not under her control, i.e. Trustees Lorch, Williams, Frogue, and Milchiker. Walther lost her board dominance with the ouster of her comrades on the Chancellor Larry Stevens era board and she has never adjusted to the loss. She wants to reinstate a Stevens' era model of control over the faculty.
Unfortunately, the ruling group at IVC supports her as well as a handful of Saddleback faculty who must have hope of career advancement under a new regime. Otherwise, why would they support an attack on the income of faculty families and on academic freedom?
SADDLEBACK COLLEGE LEADER
 |
| Walther |
To quote Judith Oldum, Walther's front-person for the P.I.E. campaign: "Bob Cosgrove is the leader of the Walther group on the Saddleback campus. Cosgrove is heavily involved in trying to defeat faculty association candidates."
And sadly, Trustee Lee Rhodes has gradually come under Walther's influence to the extent of joining the P.I.E. group and advocating the elimination of the last ten steps of the faculty salary scale. It has been disheartening to witness this. In Rhodes' candidate statement, he twice emphasizes that he is independent of any special interest group, i.e. faculty. In addition Rhodes wrote a character reference for Walther during the FPPC investigation.
For Area THREE, the Faculty Association had to choose between two former Saddleback College faculty members both of whom gave many years of excellent service to the district. The Faculty Association is supporting candidates who have consistently strong voting records and/or strong support for keeping money in the classroom. SCCD faculty work diligently for the benefit of students and we need to be free from the fear of Walther's unjustified and frenzied attacks on our careers. THREAT OF LOWERED MORALE IS REAL
Many faculty members remember the lowered morale of the Stevens' era and its attendant effect on the classroom. We need to ensure that it does not happened [sic] again. The threat is very real.
The Faculty Association would not have been running a campaign this election year except for the fact that Walther's group has forced it to. The Faculty Association is running a lean campaign because of the amount of money required in previous elections.
CONTRIBUTIONS NEEDED
Please donate to the election fund. Send contributions to Taxpayers for Responsible Education in care of your division representative.
At the very least, please tell your family and friends to vote against Walther's P.I.E. group candidates: Susanne Moraes, Dianne Brooks, and David Lang.
Walther has been soliciting campaign funds through faculty mail boxes. Please do not be fooled by the P.I.E. group's flyers. The ultimate target is your family's income.
Please get out the vote for CTA candidates, Don Davis, Dorothy Fortune, Steven Frogue, and John Williams.
FACULTY ASSOCIATION ENDORSEMENTS
—Sherry Miller White
10?/96
The notorious "same-sex" flier [10/96]
Paid for by the faculty union
Sent to south county Republicans/very successful
(See May "chronology" for further evidence of homophobia among faculty leadership)
10/17/96
Irvine Valley College Voice
Forum set for Friday to meet district trustee candidates
[The IVC VOICE]
By Angeline Fowler
Staff Writer
Voting season is upon us and you're being asked to decide on propositions, city councilmen and of course who you believe should run the country.
Well just as you thought you could take it no more, there's one more item you need to vote for and the results of this decision will directly affect your as an Irvine Valley College student in many more ways than the results of the presidential election.
At the Nov. 5 election you will be asked to cast your vote for four new members of the Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees. To assist you with this additional pressure, the IVC Academic Senate and ASIVC are jointly sponsoring a Candidates Forum which will allow students and community members to hear the candidates share their views on certain issues. The Forum will be held at IVC on Oct. 18 from 7 - 9 p.m. in b304.
Three of the Trustees, Teddi Lorch, Joan Hueter, and Marcia Milchiker are not up for re-election this year, but the remaining four seats have drawn nine candidates. In June, the boundaries of each trustees district were redrawn in order to make sure each area had an equal percentage of voters. As a result, Trustee Harriet Walther's area was eliminated and a new area was drawn for Irvine.
There are three candidates from Irvine running against [sic] for the new position, past IVC foundation president, David B. Lang, business owner Don Davis and navy officer, Mark Shelly. This [sic] the first year the City of Irvine will have their own representative on the Board of Trustees.
In the other three areas, each incumbent board position is being opposed by another candidate. Trustee Steven Frogue, Lake Forest area, is being opposed by Dianne Brooks. Suzanne Moraes is challenging Trustee John Williams for the Mission Viejo area and Trustee Rhodes is being challenged by Dorothy Fortune for the Laguna Beach area.
The trustees have tremendous power over your education and your life as a college student. All proposals and decisions to [be] implemented at the college have to be first approved by the Board of Trustees. They approve the budget, expenditure of money, hiring of new staff, new policies. Nothing happens in this district without first being approved by trustees.
The trustees represent the students, the faculty and the community in important decisions and you now have the opportunity to decide for yourself who you wish to be making those decisions on behalf of you.
This forum will give each of the nine candidates the opportunity to make brief opening and closing remarks as well as respond to questions. The academic senate are providing students and community members with the opportunity to submit questions and a total of six to eight will be chosen. Questions must be submitted before 4 p.m. Thursday, to the Academic Senate office or may be left in the ballot box adjacent to the switchboard in the A-100 building.
[NOTE: Williams and Frogue did not attend the forum; further, they (or at least Williams) seemed to believe that the forum was illegal. (Perhaps they thought that the organizers of the event favored opposing candidates. In fact, there is no evidence for this.) Eventually, an attorney for the district explained that the forum was in no sense illegal. Nevertheless, Williams did not attend.]
 |
| Paid for by the union's leadership |
10/17/96
Letter from Spencer Covert, attorney for district, to Kathleen Hodge (re the legality of the IVC "Candidates' Forum") 10/1/96
Dear Ms. Hodge
 |
| Hodge |
You contacted the undersigned on Thursday, October 17, 1996, and requested that we provide you with an opinion regarding a candidates' forum.
We understand that the Academic Senate has invited all candidates for the Board of Trustees to appear at the forum, make presentations and answer questions.
A concern has been raised as to whether or not such a forum, which will take place at Irvine Valley College, violates the provisions of Education Code section 7054.
The concern expressed was that since such a forum would involve District services and equipment, and since the forum pertains to the school board election, such a function is prohibited by Education Code section 7054. Education Code section 7054 provides:
"(a) No school district or community college district funds, services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of the district.
"(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the public resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information to the public about possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met:
"(1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the Constitution or law of this state.
"(2) The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.
"(c) A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor or felony punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both, or imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years."
The purpose of this statute, which is set forth in its legislative history, makes it clear that the prohibition pertains to the public entity's resources sponsoring one candidate over another. This is why candidates and employees cannot use District mailboxes to distribute campaign literature for a particular candidate or slate of candidates.
However, we understand that the candidates' forum for the Academic senate is a different matter. It provides the opportunity for all candidates to appear, make presentations, and respond to questions.
Consequently, we see no prohibition in Education Code section 7054 against holding such a candidates' forum on District property.
Naturally, this opinion is based upon the candidates' forum as it has been described to us. Therefore, if there are other significant facts of which we are not aware, we would need to review those facts in light of this opinion.Very truly yours,
Spencer E. Covert [attorney for the district]
10/24/96
 |
| The FA's political flack |
The Faculty Association and Pam Zanelli [CHANNING] [She came up with the "Same-sex" flier to get union candidates elected in 1996]
? [See Pam Zanelli,] a surprising dark figure with an amazing past
10/24/96
A campaign statement (Gov. Code Sections 84200-84216.5, form 420), signed by the union's Michael Channing and covering the period of 10/01/96 to 10/19/96, indicates that "Taxpayers for Responsible Educators" (a Faculty Association PAC, #942285) paid Zanelli Consulting (of Santa Ana) $1,000.
10/24/96
Saddleback College Lariat
Frogue, Brooks fight for board seat in Area 6
By TED MARTIN
After a serving one term as a trustee for on [sic] the Saddleback Community College Board of Trustees, Steven Frogue is up for reelection in Area 6.
"I think I have made a positive contribution during my time as trustee, Frogue said. "I have great familiarity and love with both colleges and many years of experience in education."
Having 18 years of teaching experience for Saddleback College, Frogue, 54, said he knows the needs of students and hopes to address some of those needs if reelected.
"I want to push for students to get more classes that they need," Frogue said. "It has been my top priority as trustee to keep the finest faculty in place."
He said he would also like to stop bureaucratic growth, expand evening child care, bring computer technology to the classroom and promote programs for re-entry students.
"I would like to see a tremendous leap in the use of technology in the classrooms," Frogue said. "As we move into the next century we need to provide our instructors and students with latest in technology. We need to maintain our excellent program."
As trustee, Frogue said he has demanded accountability for the use of taxpayers' dollars for quality educational programs.
Courses for senior citizens were reinstituted in the Emeritus Institute during his first term. He also co-authored a district statement of tolerance and dedicated two campus child-care centers.
"I am a critical consumer of information, Frogue said. "I believe one has to be not cynical, but exercise a little skepticism."
Frogue has been a resident of Lake Forest for 25 years and has been married 30 years to wife Carol, an elementary school teacher. They have two sons.
He earned a bachelor's degree and a MAT degree from Chapman University. He had six years of additional study at the University of California at Irvine, California State University at Fullerton and the University of Southern California.
For the past 30 years Frogue has taught at Foothill High School. He has also taught at Chapman and Pepperdine Universities, and he served as a Marine Sergeant at the Marine Corps Air Station in El Toro.
I am proud to fight for the strictest accountability for taxpayers dollars and their use for quality educational programs," he said.
10/96
Saddleback Community College District
Faculty Association
ELECTION ALERT (flier)
[FA]
Harriet [sic] Walther's PAC, Partners in Education, has covered the district with lies, groundless charges, and frightening hate-mail. Walther has been using her community ties to raise money to oppose faculty association candidates.
The faculty association would not have been running a campaign this year had it not been for Walther's activities.
Her real motivation is the following:
1. To fulfill her 13 year long desire to break the union and to elect her hand-picked candidates so that she can exercise absentee control over the board.
2. Retribution against other board members who refused to cover-up the fact that Walther took conflict-of-interest money from school contractors, disabling her from seeking reelection.
3. Other board members also thwarted Walther's plan to install a Stevens-like chancellor by fixing the chancellor selection process through the consulting firm which had paid her money.
She wasted $30,000 tax dollars in her attempt to fix the hiring process.
Walther's personal revenge is the only real reason forcing the faculty association to campaign this year. Because her tactics have been so vicious and because she has laid the ground-work for the campaign by accusing the faculty association of being right-wing extremists, and because she has been so busy with fund-raising activities the faculty association has to be on the defensive.
Because the faculty association has its back to the wall we have turned our campaign over to a professional firm which will try to pick up the pieces. The firm has requested any information available on Walther's campaign literature and tactics. If you have any such information please give it to your division representative.
 |
During the 1998 trustees race, the union backed and elected two more
anti-union conservatives: Wagner and Padberg |
10/24/96
Irvine Citizen
LETTER:
College board candidates showed disdain by not showing up for forum
IRVINE CITIZEN
Last Friday evening, Oct. 18, a candidate's forum was held at Irvine Valley College for the Nov. 5 election of Board of Trustees for the Saddleback Community College District. The forum was sponsored by the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate and the Associated Students of Irvine Valley College.
Invitations were sent to all nine candidates for the board including current board members Steven Frogue, Lee Rhodes and John Williams.
Great care was taken to provide a fair and open forum for all: candidates and to assure all candidates of the public's interest in hearing their views. The forum was moderated by the League of Women Voters. Questions were prepared in advance and the same questions were posed to all candidates.
When neither Frogue nor Williams responded to initial letters of invitation, second letters on [sic] invitation were hand delivered by forum organizers. When Williams raised a question concerning the "legality" of such a forum, counsel for the district was consulted. Counsel assured Williams that such a forum was legal, whether on campus or off.
In addition, the academic senates of both colleges sought counsel and were informed that the forum was legal. This information was also communicated to Williams.
Given the lengths to which the college community went to provide a fair and open forum for all candidates, I was surprised and very disappointed to see that Frogue and Williams, who purport to represent the voters of this district, did not show up for the candidate's forum-nor bother to inform the people who set up the forum that they would not be present.
I can only conclude that Frogue and Williams are indifferent to the democratic process or they believe that, as incumbents, the election is in the bag. Why else would they not even bother to appear? As the only other possible explanations are arrogance or contempt for the public in general, I prefer to assume that the former is the reason why they chose to stay away.
Rhodes, who represents the Laguna Beach area, did attend. Rhodes has been an outstanding board member. He was a biology professor at Saddleback College until his retirement. He was also the chief negotiator for the first faculty association contract. The fact that he has been steadfastly independent and fair handed has won him the enmity of the current union leadership, which is backing candidate Dorothy Fortune, who also chose not to show up.
It is a great shame that the community did not have the opportunity to hear all nine candidates Friday evening, because the forum was extremely successful, being very well attended and very informative and interesting.
This is an important election for the Saddleback Community College District. Many of us who work in the district care deeply about the fate of our colleges. I hope that voters will take the time to look carefully at the board of trustee election and make their opinions heard at the polls.
—Nancy Jo Hoy
10/31/96
Saddleback College Lariat
Candidate cries foul in flier flap LARIAT
Partners in Education claims its flier was doctored by political opponents
By MARYANNE WARDLAW
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Suzanne Moraes, a candidate for the Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees, has filed a complaint with the Orange County Registrar of Voters. She said her opponents falsified literature distributed by Partners in Education, the political action committee which supports her.
Incumbent John Williams, who is opposing Moraes in Area 7, gave a copy of a flier, supposedly written by PIE, to a member of the Irvine Valley College newspaper, The Voice. Included in the points stating the candidates' platform was the statement "support domestic partners' health benefits.''
Williams also gave a copy of the same flier to the Lariat.
PIE-supported candidates, Dianne Brooks, David Lang, Moraes and Lee Rhodes, all said the group's fliers never included a reference to domestic partners, and they have not individually distributed campaign material discussing the issue of extending health benefits to domestic partners.
Williams said he received the flier more than a month ago. He said Rhodes was distributing it among faculty members and that more recent fliers had that section removed.
"I imagine their campaign consultant told them that wasn't a wise thing to put on your campaign literature, so they took it out," Williams said.
Moraes said there were three versions of the flier, all of which contained five identical bullets describing the candidates' platform. The flier distributed by Williams had six bullets, the only difference in content being the inclusion of the statement about do partners' health benefits.
"It isn't a question about how people feel about domestic partners or these benefits," Moraes said.
She said the issue is the falsification of campaign literature.
The Registrar of Voters has forwarded the complaint to the District Attorney's office.
10/31/96
Saddleback College Lariat, Open forum [10/31/96]
[What we have here is what philosophers and logicians call the fallacy of suppressed evidence: Williams presents the factoid that Walther was in violation while ignoring the readily available factoid that, according to the FPPC, who made that determination, her violation was merely technical and cast no negative light on Walther's character. —RB]
Walther not cleared of charges, [by] John Williams
I must take exception with a conclusion drawn by your staff in reporting distribution of election material by a faculty member. As a candidate seeking re-election to the Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees, I feel my response is warranted.
Without discussing the issue of distribution of the material, the Lariat's conclusion that "the original letter by the commission, excerpts of which were included in the flier, ultimately cleared Walther of charges..." is not accurate.
I draw your attention to the following statements in the Fair Political Practices Commission, Case No. 94/120, Warning Letter to Trustee Walther and Case Closure Memorandum. These items were introduced into the board record at the September meeting and are a matter of public record. "Based on the facts and circumstances as set forth in the enclosed Case Closure Memorandum, it appears that you have violated the conflict of interest provisions of Act. However, based on mitigating factors also set forth in the enclosed memorandum, we have determined that prosecution for this violation is not warranted.
"Nevertheless, please be advised that failure to properly disqualify yourself from board decisions in the future which could have a financial effect on your interests could result in enforcement action being initiated against you. In addition, the circumstances of this case would be used as aggravating information in any future prosecution we may bring against you for violations of the Act.
"On her Statement of Economic Interests (SEI) for 1991, Ms. Walther reported income she had received from ACCT during 1991. However, on March 16, 1993, when she filed her SEI for calendar year 1992, Ms. Walther reported no interests and failed to report the income she had received from ACCT during 1992.
"Based upon the fact that Harriett Walther, a public official with the SCCD, received income in excess of $250 from ACCT within 12 months of the April 19, 1993 vote to award an executive search contact to ACCT, she was required to disqualify herself from participating and voting on the decision. Her failure to disqualify herself constitutes a violation of the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act."
These statements hardly appear to "ultimately clear" Trustee Walther of the charges as stated in your Oct. 24 issue.
For several months now, I have been encouraging the Board of Trustees to enact a new Code of Ethics that would prohibit members from accepting personal outside employment with entities or individuals that the SCCD either contracts with or is a dues-paying member of. The board has yet to take final action on this issue.
I would like to know what the students feel about sitting trustees accepting personal outside employment with district contractors and entities paid membership dues by the SCCD.
Williams is a SCCD board member.
Faculty [association] defends flier distribution
There were several falsehoods planted by Harriett Walther and her cohorts in the Oct. 24 edition of the Lariat.
The Faculty Association did NOT violate board policy in its flier distribution. The Faculty Association has the legal right to distribute the California State Fair Political Practices Commission letter stating that Harriett Walther is guilty of conflict-of-interest money.
The Faculty Association cannot be prohibited from distributing its literature on campus.
The board policy was initiated by Walther in the first place to prevent information about her from becoming public.
Harriett Walther lied when she said that the Faculty Association omitted part of the original FPPC letter. The ENTIRE letter was distributed all over both campuses BEFORE the newsletter discussing the case was distributed. Walther told the same lie at the last board meeting.
The FPPC letter which was distributed in its ENTIRETY clearly states that Walther is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interest provision of the Political Reform Act and that this instance of Walther's taking conflict-of-interest money could be used as "aggravating information in any future prosecution we may bring against you for violation of the Act."
In addition, Walther's association with Partners in Education candidates David Lang, Lee Rhodes, Dianne Brooks and Suzy Moraes is well-established. The Oct. 5, edition of the L.A. Times Saddleback Valley Voice describes the Partners in Education meeting which Walther chaired.
And Walther's front person for the campaign, Judith Odlum, repeatedly told callers from the Faculty Association that Harriett Walther was in charge of the entire campaign.
When Walther's Partners in Education group distributed its political literature on campus, the Faculty Association, in the interest of fair play, said nothing.
However, the Partners in Education group went to great lengths in its attempt to prevent the dissemination of literature revealing the truth about its leader, Harriett Walther.
Why is Walther so intent on getting her friends elected to the Saddleback Community College District Board? Would Walther expect the Partners in Education candidates to vote as board members to award consulting contracts to Walther?
— Contributed by the Saddleback Community College District Faculty Association
 |
Ken Woodward was a vocal defender of union tactics and
defender of Frogue, et al. |
10/31/96
Irvine Valley College Voice,
Controversy surrounds district trustee election
VOICE
By Angeline Fowler
Staff Writer
With five days to go until election day, the race for district trustees for the Saddleback board has been marred with controversy, according to candidates and some supporters. "Its really embarrassing to be involved in a campaign that has gotten this dirty," said Trustee John Williams who is running for reelection. "I ran for the board in 1988 and 1992 and both were very clean campaigns on both sides. We stuck to the issues."
But this year, both sides are alleging wrongdoing. Candidates are claiming conflicts of interest by their opponents and confusion has arisen over who and where financial contributions and support are coming from.
At the center of the controversy are a series of flyers that allege a conflict of interest in one case, and in another, the support of same-sex domestic health benefits, and finally, the tampering of information on a flyer.
On Tuesday, David Lang, a candidate who would represent the Irvine area, claims that as a result of the latest controversy, he said he is requesting a Fair Political Practices Commission investigation over tampering with a campaign flyer by an unknown group.
And it appears apparent that some candidates are slated by certain groups that represent the interests of Irvine Valley College, while others represent the interest of Saddleback Colleges. Some IVC faculty are openly pro-Partners in Education candidates, Lang, Suzy Moraes, Dianne Brooks and incumbent Lee Rhodes. The other candidates include incumbents John Williams and Steven Frogue, Dorothy Fortune, and Don Davis, who are being backed by the teachers union. And, most of the members of the union are Saddleback teachers.
The red and black flyer
Most recently, a paid political flyer, claiming that the Partners in Education slate support using education tax dollars to pay for domestic benefits for same-sex partners, was distributed. Paid for by Taxpayers for Responsible Education, this red-and-black colored flyer was I [sic] sent to homes in the area. The flyer carries the names of photos of Fortune, Davis, Williams and Frogue.
Although each candidate has said that they are not a slate, Fortune says they are.
Officers representing the union did not respond to requests for an interview.
The flyer, which crosses out the names of Partners in Education's four candidates, claims that not only did the candidates plan to spend $9,000 on same-sex benefits but also pay for college classes to include content [sic] gay and lesbian life-styles and seminars to educate participants about the gay and lesbian life-style.
"It represents the Machiavellian, win at all cost approach that gives democracy a bad name," said Frank Marmolejo, IVC faculty member. "At worst, the flyer is morally reprehensible, for what it actually is proposing is homophobic."
According to Brooks, the issue of domestic partner benefits has been raised to the Partners in Education candidates previously as part of questionnaires completed on request from three gay groups in support of their campaign. In addition, a question regarding their opinion on same-sex benefits was asked at a candidates' forum in Laguna Beach.
"I am upset that someone would invent and distribute fabrications like this," said Dianne Brooks, SCCD candidate.
"The whole thing is a smoke screen to start a fire somewhere else in an attempt to divert the issue from the real problems, which are Frogue, Williams, and Fortune themselves."
The only way domestic partner benefits would be supported in the district would be if the party in question negotiated it with the union, according to Lang.
When asked if he would support the benefits mentioned in the flyer, Lang said that if it became a board issue, he would vote for it.
And another result of the distribution of this flyer was the apparent withdrawal of support by the Laguna Beach Democratic Club of candidate Dorothy Fortune in response.
"Recently a piece of campaign literature was circulated by forces with whom she has aligned herself that is so scurrilous and vile in it's homophobic message that we can no longer support her candidacy," said Anne E. Cox, president of Laguna Beach Democratic Club.
At the same time as withdrawing their endorsement, the club recalled 10,000 copies of campaign door hangers to blue line Fortune's name.
There have been worries expressed by Partners in Education candidates regarding the connection between "Taxpayers for Responsible Education" and the other candidates.
According to both Williams and Frogue, neither have received financial support from this particular Political Action Committee.
"I never saw this flyer before, and I never heard of it before I received it in the mail yesterday," Frogue said. "We could teach four English classes for what (providing health benefits to same sex partners) would cost."
"We should pay for benefits for part-time faculty first," Frogue said.
According to Brooks, Trustee John Williams made public accusations about the Partners in Education slate at the Republican Rally held at Leisure World a couple of weeks ago.
But Williams said he was just repeating what we had read on one of their flyers he had received. That particular flyer said that "P.I.E. is a bipartisan, community-based, political action committee formed to support candidates who: support domestic partners' health benefits."
"It's a very costly proposal, I don't think P.I.E. truly informed their candidates about their objectives," Williams said.
A flyer was altered
A flyer, which looked mysteriously like one distributed earlier by Partners in Education, surfaced this week. Except, this one had significant changes that said the Partners slate supported same sex benefits. "This is not our original flyer," Lang said. He continued to say, "First, the union distributed the flyer regarding a conflict of interest of Harriet Walther, now someone forged a piece of our literature."
According to both Trustees Williams and Frogue, they were both given a copy of this particular flyer by a Partners in Education campaigner.
"We have no idea who made it but I would have to presume it was made by the same people who put out that other same-sex domestic benefits flyer," said Priscilla Ross, Partners in Education organizer and a faculty member at IVC.
The association flyer
This first flyer was distributed to faculty mail boxes earlier this month by the District faculty association. It included a copy of a letter from the California Fair Political Practices Commission regarding a conflict of interest complaint against ex-trustee Harriet Walther.
The letter stated that "it appears that you have violated the conflict of interest provisions of the Act. However, based on mitigating factors, we have determined that prosecution is not warranted."
Partners in Education candidates and supporters were angered over the flyer which was distributed again a week later carrying the SCCD Faculty Association logo. The faculty association implicated the candidates in the conflict of interest affair, claiming that Walther was the founder of Partners in Education and active in the group.
The distribution of flyers
And finally, the issue of distributing flyers on campus has some candidates and teachers concerned because a board policy exists that prohibits such distribution. But, according to Trustee Frogue, the faculty association are the only college organization that are exempt from the policy.
10/31/96
Irvine World News Editorial
Hey, it's an election year
IWN EDITORIAL
Unless you've been living under a rock somewhere, you're aware an election is approaching.
This is a big one because Americans will be choosing their national leader for the next four years. Naturally, most of the focus has been on that race.
But there are four local races that involve some pretty important offices, too. It could be argued they're more important than the presidency in terms of their impact on your day-to-day life.
Folks will be deciding Tuesday on candidates for the Irvine City Council, the boards of trustees of the Irvine Unified School District and the Saddleback Community College District, and the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District.
A majority of the seats on each of these bodies is at stake this time, so the makeup of each of these governing boards could be changed dramatically.
And that's reason enough to vote, even if you're convinced the pollsters are absolutely correct about the presidential race and there's no need for you to bother.
But staying away from your voting place on Tuesday is not in your best interest.
For one thing, your failure to cast an informed vote in local elections only helps the individuals or special interest groups that have a particular agenda to push or something to gain besides better government.
Elections in the Saddleback Community College District, for example, has been influenced for several years through funds controlled by the political action committee (PAC) of the district's faculty association.
The association, naturally, is interested in salaries and benefits and other labor issues that concern its members. It is interested, therefore, in electing district trustees who will listen attentively to its representatives.
There is nothing illegal about this, but it demonstrates how a democratic institution can become influenced, perhaps more than it should be, by a special interest group when the electorate fails to fully exercise its role....
10/96 (late October?)
Flier:
ATTENTION DEMOCRATS !!!
[FLIER] [COX]
The Laguna Beach Democratic Club has withdrawn it's endorsement of Dorothy Fortune as a candidate for the Saddleback Community College Board of Trustees in Area 3.
Recently a piece of campaign literature was circulated by forces with whom she has aligned herself that is so scurrilous and vile in it's homophobic message that we can no longer support her candidacy.
This attempt to kindle fear and hatred in voters as a technique to garner support for a candidate is so antithetical to the values and principles of the Democratic Party and the Board of this organization that to even indirectly find ourselves on the side of a campaign that stoops to such detestable tactics is intolerable. We regret deeply that this situation could not have been avoided, but find it preferable to admit a mistake in our choice of endorsements, rather than to contribute to the furtherance of a candidacy that would allow itself to be tied to materials that appeal to the worst in human nature. Sincerely,
—Anne E. Cox,
President, LBDC
11/1/96
Orange County Jewish Heritage, AD [ATTACKS WALTHER]
 |
| The Jewish Heritage ad |
Ad
TAXPAYER ALERT
Harriet Walther who was cited by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), Case #94/120, for taking Conflict-of-Interest money, founded and controls the "Partners in Education" PAC whose candidates are : David Lang, Diane Brooks, Lee Rhodes, and Suzy Moraes. Now Walther is trying to elect a College Board majority to vote-in Tax-Paid health insurance for same-sex domestic partners at a taxpayer cost of $9,000 dollars per "partners" each year.
PLEASE, VOTE AGAINST:
David Lang, Diane Brooks, Lee Rhodes & Suzy Moraes in the Saddleback College District Board of Trustees race.
THEY WANT TO WASTE YOUR EDUCATION TAX DOLLARS.
This ad is paid for by: O.C. Citizens for Quality Education ID#881519
[Faculty Association affiliated.]
[In fact, Walther's violation was merely technical—she had been paid a small amount by the organization she voted on—and thus no agency took action against her.]
11/1/96
The Laguna Coastline News
Commentary:
Candidates Have A Duty To Fulfill
By LISA ALVAREZ
Imagine a room on a college campus, filled with citizens. Warm coffee, cookies laid out in generous sweet spirals. A long table on a riser hosts chairs, plates and microphones. People shuffle in and take their places. The League of Women Voters moderator welcomes all to a candidate's forum. This scene is common--occurring in cities, suburbs and towns across our nation. While citizens can tune in and watch televised debates for national and state-wide races, for local issues, the community relies on forums like this one to explore issues and to personally meet the candidates.
On Friday, October 18, such a forum was held at Irvine Valley College.
Almost.
Sponsored by the Associated Students of Irvine Valley College and the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate with facilitation provided by the League of Women Voters, the forum sought to bring together the nine candidates for four contested seats on the Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees.
The scene was familiar to that described above with one exception--of the nine candidates for the four seats, only three (Dianne Brooks, David Lang and incumbent Lee Rhodes) attended. Candidates Suzy Moraes, Don Davis and Mark Shelley declined due to scheduling conflicts. The remaining candidates (incumbent Steve Frogue, incumbent John Williams and Dorothy Fortune) failed to respond to the initial invitation.
Trustee Williams at a board meeting scheduled before the forum, suggested he would not attend because such a forum violates the ed code.
The next day, legal opinions from the district's own counsel [see above] as well as the ACLU determined that such forums were legal. The opinions were faxed to all board members, but Williams and Frogue still failed to appear.
People cannot be forced to use their First Amendment right to free speech. Candidates are free to choose when to appear before the public. But public service does demand accountability and accessibility.
In an election year where, on a national level, candidates such as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader sue for the right to participate in televised debates, it is ironic--almost unimaginable--that candidates on the local level, two with incumbency status, decline their opportunity. In an election year where record numbers of immigrants apply for citizenship status, willing to take on the accompanying privileges and responsibilities, it is ironic to discover that sitting Board members and those who wish to join them abdicate their own responsibilities. In an election year where voter apathy is epidemic, it is ironic and disappointing to find candidates especially paid incumbents, contributing to the plague of indifference.
As the facilitator from the League of Women Voters reminded the 73 people in attendance that Friday evening, every vote counts especially at the local level.
I urge voters to carefully consider the SCCD Board of Trustees election, as well as all races, and to support candidates willing to face the public and each other.
11/6/96
Saddleback College Academic Senate Resolution,
WHEREAS, the Saddleback Community College District is reported to be rapidly entering an agreement with the City of Mission Viejo to build a baseball stadium on the Saddleback College campus, and
WHEREAS, the Academic Senate of Saddleback College recognizes the potential benefits from such a stadium for the College and the community, and
WHEREAS, the faculty, students, and staff of Saddleback College are an integral part of the shared governance process as set forth in AB 1725 and Saddleback Community College District Board Policy 2100.1 and MUST be consulted, and
WHEREAS, a lack of information regarding such a contract has been evident and a list of concerns remains unaddressed, and
WHEREAS, the Saddleback Community College District management has not recognized nor included the Academic Senate of Saddleback College in its legal "rely primarily" status in any aspect of this project,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ACADEMIC SENATE OF SADDLEBACK COLLEGE does not approve of Saddleback Community College District entering into any contract with the City of Mission Viejo for a baseball stadium until these concerns are resolved and further recommends that a series of public forums, to include the community, be held to discuss such a contract.
Moved by Mike Merrifield
Seconded by Pete Espinosa
Motion Passed on November 6, 1996
11/7/96
Saddleback College Lariat
ad, full page, p. 3
[LARIAT, FA] GRAPHIC
Paid for by the Faculty Union
Again, if one were to bother to actually read the FPPC letter (shown here), one would discover that, essentially, that organization judged Walther's violation to be merely technical, casting no shadow on Walther's character.
11/7/96
Saddleback College Lariat
Board trustees elected in race
LARIAT
By KEVIN ZACHARY HESSEL
MANAGING EDITOR
In the first election since the realignment of areas in the Saddleback Community College District, two incumbents and two newcomers have been elected to the board of trustees.
In newly-created Area 1, David B. Lang defeated opponents Don Davis and Mark Shelley. Lang captured 36 percent of the vote, while Davis and Shelley received 33 percent and 30 percent, respectively.
Lang, who was supported by Partners in Education, has been involved with the district with his presidency of the Irvine Valley College Foundation Board of Governors. He also founded the Planned Giving Committee at IVC, which raises funds to assist the school with expenses not covered by the state.
In Area 3, incumbent Lee Rhodes was defeated by Dorothy Fortune, 55 percent to 45 percent.
Fortune was backed by the Teacher's Association and the SCCD faculty association. She is a former English instructor at Saddleback College.
In Area 6, incumbent Steven Frogue defeated challenger Dianne Brooks with 60 percent voter approval.
Frogue, also supported by the CTA and faculty association, will begin his second four-year term as a trustee. He previously had 18 years of teaching experience at Saddleback.
In Area 7, incumbent John Williams defeated Suzanne Moraes 61 percent to 39 percent. He was also backed by the CTA and the faculty association.
Williams has served on the board for four years and was the board's president during the Orange County bankruptcy. He is also a graduate of Saddleback College.
11/7/96
Saddleback College Lariat
ASG, faculty waste advertising money
[LARIAT EDITORIAL]
Normally, the Lariat welcomes advertisers with open arms, as they are necessary to keep the paper running. Two campus organizations, however—the Associated Student Government and the Saddleback Community College District Faculty Association—recently bought ads which wasted student and faculty moneys.
 |
| MacMillan |
ASG bought a contract for $5,420 worth of ads throughout the year. ASG advertising generally publicizes student events, such as campus elections, homecoming or special events.
On Oct. 17, however, ASG used the half page it had reserved for a "No on Proposition 209" ad. Realizing ethical questions could be raised over using student funds to further a political cause—and a controversial one at that—ASG asked the Lariat to design a "Yes on 209" ad the next week.
In addition to the budgeted $475 these two ads wasted canceling each other out, ASG paid $50 to take out a last-minute ad Oct. 31. It tied the Prop. 209 ads together with the state "The point is not if you vote yes or no-the point is to vote."
This was merely a costly cover for an error of judgment on ASG's part. The faculty association [union], which campaigned for four board of trustee candidates, three of whom were elected, paid $655 for page 3 in this issue. The ad was requested by Sherry Miller-White, president of the faculty association, and Sharon MacMillan, vice president, after they expressed displeasure over our coverage of an issue involving the association and Partners in Education. PIE is a political action committee whose candidates opposed the association's candidates for the board of trustees.
This ad serves the interests of Miller-White and MacMillan, not faculty members of the association. As the elections are over it has no political purpose, and the trustee member it specifically targets—Harriett Walther—is retiring when her term ends this year.
It is also unlikely that discrediting Pamela Hewitt, an Irvine Valley College administrative secretary who raised questions concerning the legality of MacMillan distributing fliers, could in any way benefit the faculty. It is faculty members, however, who are paying the $655 tab.
If organizations with deep pockets must throw money around, we will not stop them from throwing it our way. But preferably these organizations will refrain from abusing the trust invested in them.
ASG, which runs on student money, should spend it on student interests alone. Students should never have to pay for their representatives to save political face.
The faculty association, likewise, should have the faculty's interests at heart. For its leaders to use their political clout to settle petty matters of personal pride and power is shameful.
11/96
Faculty Association flier: ELECTION RESULTS
WALTHER'S ATTEMPT TO
CONTROL BOARD MAJORITY FAILS
TOGETHER WE CAN PRESERVE QUALITY EDUCATION, FAIR COMPENSATION, AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR GENEROUS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS.
ALL CTA CANDIDATES WON EXCEPT IN AREA L WHERE CHRISTIAN COALITION CANDIDATE MARK SHELLEY SPLIT THE CONSERVATIVE VOTE WITH CTA CANDIDATE DON DAVIS AND DAVID LANG MANAGED TO WIN WITH A MINORITY VOTE OF 36%.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WALTHER'S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL A BOARD MAJORITY FAILED. HOWEVER, WALTHER'S GROUP HAS NOW VOWED TO DE-CERTIFY THE FACULTY ASSOCIATION WHICH WAS ITS GOAL BEFORE THE ELECTION. TOGETHER, WE CAN ALSO PREVENT THIS. WE WILL DISCUSS THIS SITUATION SOON IN A NEWSLETTER...
11?/96
From a publication of the Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club
A Word About Endorsements
[ER DEM CLUB, 11/96]
By Meg Robinson
Another election cycle has come and gone, and so have our triumphs and failures with endorsements. Most of our endorsements are based on questionnaires or interviews. In an election year such as this, the few candidates we are able to make personal contact with are in the "big" races; the other 400 or so candidates need to contact us by mail.
Occasionally, we got a good response from a not so good candidate--no one says that politicians are always truthful. Such was the case in the race for the Saddleback Community College Board of Trustees. Don Davis had sent both ERDC and ECCO an acceptable response to our questionnaire. On this basis, we found him to be acceptable on our issues. Then, low and behold, the hit piece from Davis and 3 other candidates came attacking their opponents who were in favor of domestic partnerships as carrying the "gay agenda." We did what we could. We called our members in the area and mailed out a flier telling members not to vote for the homophobic candidates, and I immediately informed other Democratic Clubs of the flier and many pulled their endorsements of the one Democrat [Fortune] listed on the campaign piece. I will further pursue censure of that candidate during next year's Democratic Central Committee meeting of which she is a member. (The Central Committee had passed a resolution condemning homophobic tactics. )....
11/8/96
Orange County Jewish Heritage
Editorial:
A false and malicious ad
On Nov. 1, the Orange County Jewish HERITAGE published an ad that falsely accused a member of the Jewish community of "taking conflict of interest money."
The allegation is absolutely untrue and malicious in its intent.
Harriett Walther, who has served with distinction as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Saddleback Community College District since 1977, was made the focus of attacks in this year's election campaign--a campaign in which she chose not to be a candidate.
Following an intensive investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission, an investigation initiated by a small group of faculty in the College District, the CFPPC declared that, while Walther ought to have abstained from voting on a specific contract, she did not benefit financially by the action. She absolutely did not take "Conflict of interest money." CFPPC closed the case without prosecution, and Walther publicly disclosed that there had been an investigation.
The political action committee that placed the ad knew the facts and deliberately distorted them. Why? Walther had endorsed a slate of candidates for the College Board--a slate that was also endorsed by the South Orange County Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee and supported by Women For: Orange County, as well as by numerous civic leaders, faculty, students, parents and community members.
 |
| Stan Brin of OCJH |
The ad further declared that the candidates she supported had a specific agenda. Nothing in their campaigns supported that allegation either. This guilt-by-association tactic is frighteningly reminiscent of McCarthyism.
HERITAGE regrets having run the ad without authenticating its accuracy and intent and apologizes to Harriett Walther for publicizing false charges about her. HERITAGE further regrets any role it may have inadvertently played in damaging the reputations of candidates Lang, Rhodes, Brooks and Moraes, and affecting the outcome of the election.
11/12/96
Fax message from Angeline Fowler, managing editor of the Irvine Valley College,
Voice to Sherry Miller-White, President, Faculty Association
I have been trying to contact you repeatedly over the last couple of weeks regarding the distribution of flyers. I recently received a copy of the ad you placed in the Lariat on November 7 and hoped you would be able to answer my questions...I would really like to get your side of the story in the article....
—Angeline
11/15/96
Letter from Orange County Lawyers for Equality for Gays and Lesbians
(OCLEGAL) to Diane Fernandes-Lisi (of CTA)
Dear Ms. Fernandez-Lisi [sic]:
It has come to our (Orange County Lawyers for Equality for Gays and Lesbians) attention that a political action committee associated with the Saddleback Community College District recently used anti-gay political materials to influence the November election of their candidates.
We are writing to you as local representative of the CTA to register our outrage. It is shocking that a political action arm of a local community college teacher's union could distribute material such as this. It is unconscionable that recipients might assume the CTA would support such materials.
In one mailer, titled "Taxpayer Alert" (paid for by O.C. Citizens for Quality Education), voters were urged to vote against four candidates who support domestic partnership rights. In another mailer, "Taxpayer Alert-Same-sex marriage" it was claimed that "these 4 candidates want to use our education tax dollars to pay for seminars and conferences to educate participants about the Gay & lesbian Lifestyle."
It is our understanding that CTA did not know of the attached publication's content until it was published and we are glad that this is the case. The fact remains, however, that without further comment from you many people still believe these ads were associated with the union and the CTA. We urge you as educators, to state unequivocally and publicly that you do not support the tactics of hate and fear.
—Sincerely,
Diana R. Griffiths, President of O.C.L.E.G.A.L.
11/15/96
Orange County Weekly,
Adventures in Advertising:
The real purpose behind gay-baiting at Saddleback College
[OC WEEKLY/MOXLEY]
By R. SCOTT MOXLEY
LOCAL POLITICAL observers are calling it the "most scurrilous and vile" campaign ad of the season, and it wasn't the deft handiwork of U.S. Congressman Bob Dornan, Orange County's most infamous negative campaigner. No, the ad-which critics say was designed to tap anti-gay sentiment-was sent by a college-faculty association on behalf of a slate of three conservative candidates and one Democrat vying for seats on the governing board of the Saddleback College District [since renamed the "South Orange County Community College District"].
Three of the candidates supported by the controversial ad—including the Democrat—won.
According to the four-page mailer, same-sex marriage advocates are plotting to "TAKE CONTROL of your tax dollars and your community colleges."
The ad—sent to thousands of South County Republicans during the election's final three weeks—rails against domestic-partner health benefits and discussions of gay and lesbian lifestyles in college classes or seminars.
"Don't be misled by ultraliberal political groups. Keep Saddleback independent," read the red, white and black mailer. "Reject tax-paid health insurance for same-sex 'partners.' Vote to protect [their emphasis] the integrity of Saddleback Colleges."
But while same-sex marriage, domestic-partner benefits and gay-related curriculum are certainly inflammatory wedge issues, they had nothing to do with the nonpartisan race for trustee slots at Saddleback, the state's sixth-largest community college district with 33,000 students and an annual budget of more than $70 million.
"Personally, I am open to the idea of domestic-partner benefits," said Lee Rhodes, one of those blasted in the anti-gay mailer. "But it just isn't on the radar screen of pressing issues we face."
The nasty rhetoric obscured the real struggle: which group of trustees is likely to be more generous with teachers at the district's two community colleges, Saddleback in Mission Viejo and Irvine Valley in Irvine.
The anti-gay mailer was paid for by Taxpayers for Responsible Education, a political-action committee (PAC) established by the Saddleback Community College District Faculty Association. The "taxpayers" are mostly Saddleback Community College faculty eager to elect a board that will cut a better deal with teachers when their contract comes up for renegotiation this year.
Michael Channing, the association's treasurer and a Saddleback College English professor, said that he was unaware of the ad's content before it was mailed. "I really don't want to be associated with this," he said.
Channing declined to answer further questions and referred inquiries to Sherry MillerWhite, president of the association. She could not be reached for comment.
The faculty-controlled PAC reported spending $44,000 through Oct. 19 on behalf of ultraright-wing incumbents Steven Frogue, John Williams, Democrat Dorothy Fortune and Don Davis. Only Davis lost.
"The ad was manufactured lies and misinformation," said David Lang, a CPA who ran on a slate with Rhodes, Dianne Brooks and Suzanne Moraes. The ad targeted the slate for defeat; only Lang survived.
"It's disgusting and shameful that they would involve the gay community in this [election], but it shows the lengths they will go to control the colleges."
But the most interesting beneficiary of the mailer was Fortune, who was a presidential delegate for Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
"I had nothing to do with writing it, mailing it or paying for it," Fortune said after the election. When reminded that her picture and biography appeared in the ad, she said, "I'm sorry, but I was not in the loop at all."
Members of the Laguna Beach Democratic Club, to which Fortune belonged, were outraged by the ad and voted to strip their endorsement from her campaign in the final weeks. The club issued a statement decrying any candidate who attempted "to kindle fear and hatred in voters as a technique to garner support."
"Fortune may not have mailed it or paid for it, but she certainly was open to her campaign benefiting from it," said Anne Cox, club president. "I spoke with her at length after the ad came out and explained how betrayed people felt about its tone and message. But she made it clear her goal was to win the election—obviously at any cost."
Rhodes, the incumbent trustee and fellow Democrat whom Fortune defeated, called the brochure "despicable" and, along with Lang, charged that someone forged their slate's campaign brochures by inserting a statement that they were actively pushing for domestic partner benefits at the colleges.
"That flier appealed to the worst in human nature by trying to incite certain elements in our community that are susceptible to hatemongering and hysteria," said Rhodes, a retired biology professor associated with Saddleback College for 28 years as a teacher and trustee. "The piece could not have been further from the real education issues at stake. It was just an underhanded smoke screen."
11/21/96
The Saddleback College Lariat
Open Forums:
[LARIAT LETTERS]
Editorial angers trustee, Dorothy Fortune
The Lariat is unique. Unlike most student newspapers containing relatively impartial news, the Lariat's editors and advisers have chosen to follow a wildly partisan path. It reached new levels of absurdity in the Nov. 7 editorial. The closing phrase reflects either ignorance or abject cynicism.
The editor complains that "it's shameful" that the Faculty Association was forced to pay $655 for a Lariat ad to put forward an accurate picture of a conflict. The (leaders of the) Faculty Association, the editor said, should not "use their political clout to settle petty matters of personal pride and power."
The Lariat editors and advisers know the recent Board (of Trustees) election had nothing to do with "petty matters," but had a great deal to do with tyrannical administrators, nepotism and favoritism for incompetent instructors, million-dollar expenditures on everything except classes, and a progressive growth of the number and salaries of administrators.
But those issues were never touched on in the Lariat, which either misrepresented the facts or printed letters doing that. That was why the Faculty Association had to pay to get information printed correctly in the Lariat.
For over a month the Lariat has given the "student" Norman Doctorow free space in the newspaper; he did not have to pay a penny for an ad like the ASG or the FA, but simply received a free quarter page, week after week.
On November 7, Doctorow was elevated to the "Open Forum" status also free of charge.
Not even the most backwater rag prints one reader's ravings for six weeks. It is no coincidence that Doctorow has only one topic, always defending outgoing trustee Harriett Walther. It is no coincidence that the Lariat, supposedly composed of a talented group of journalists and advisers, has given Doctorow more coverage than it gave the four elected trustees.
In the Oct. 31 edition, a Lariat article on the Board election was remarkable. The paper listed the amounts spent by each candidate, but the newspaper did not care to explain the source of contributions.
In the Nov. 7 paper, the Lariat sourly announced the Trustee winners with the ominous phrase that three winners were "backed by the CTA and the Faculty Association," as if teachers were the employees earning over $100,000 a year, rarely in their offices, achieving little, and accountable to no one.
The Nov. 7 coverage was predictable. There was no discussion of an exhaustive campaign which gave two incumbents victory margins exceeding 60 percent, and let me defeat an incumbent by 55 percent, or why one PIE candidate barely won with only 30 percent of the vote when a Christian Coalition candidate made it a three-way race. The Nov. 7 editorial is so childish that its only explanation must be that the advisers plan to plea they have no influence over what the students write. That argument, of course, would assume that we readers were as childish as the editorial.
Fortune is a SCCD trustee-elect.
Editor's note: Lariat policy is to print all letters submitted, with the exception of obscene or libelous material. The Lariat does not solicit or censor letters.
Lariat ethics questioned,
[by the] Faculty Association
Your friendship with Harriett Walther is apparently affecting your journalistic integrity.
Your editorial of Nov. 7, 1996, regarding the Faculty Association's ad on Harriett Walther's Partners in Education group is not based in truth.
Here are a few facts you should consider:
(l) You refused to print our ad before the election.
(2) According to California Teachers Association consultants, literature distribution is the primary right the CTA chapter must protect in order to function.
(3) There have been extensive discussions among numerous decision makers including CTA consultants regarding the continuing need to present the truth about the Partners in Education group to the public.
(4) Harriett Walther is not vanishing from the scene (we wish you were correct on this one). The next election is only two years away, and Walther plans to disturb the peace of the district for some time to come. She still needs to exact revenge on other board members who exposed Walther's conflict of interest.
(5) Apparently, the only way to get truthful headlines on Walther's Political Action Committee in the Lariat is to buy the space and reprint your corrections so that they are noticeable.
(6) What you consider too insignificant for headlines or editorials is this:
Opponents of controversial South Orange County Community College District president Steven Frogue found themselves all but locked out of Monday night's monthly board meeting after a group of roughly 30 boisterous Frogue supporters arrived early and took the board room's limited seating. 
2. Official recall petition says Steven Frogue is ‘disgraced’ 
