Sunday, April 24, 1994

Saddleback Community College District Trustee STEVEN J. FROGUE: EARLY SKIRMISHES (Part 1)

Saddleback Community College District Trustee STEVEN J. FROGUE: 

EARLY SKIRMISHES, PART I

1994 

4/24/94 

Letter from Trustee Lee Rhodes explaining the circumstances of Trustee Walther's alleged "conflict of interest" vote 

To Whom it May Concern: 

Re: ACCT (Association of Community College Trustees)) Chancellor Search, Saddleback Community College District, 1993-1994, a question of conflict of interest. 

In March 1993, I received several items (by mail, E-mail, and Fax) that related to our search for a new chancellor for the Saddleback Community College District. At least two of these items related to conflict of interest; specifically, conflict of interest relating to Harriett Walther's relationship with ACCT's executive search efforts. I have not been able to find, in my files, copies of the items relating to conflict of interest; however, I do recall some of the content, as I was one of those that participated in a discussion regarding this conflict of interest. My recollection is that this discussion took place at a special board meeting with David Viar, executive Director of CCLC. After this discussion and E-mail correspondence from Harriett, I was satisfied that there was no conflict of interest. Harriett informed the Board that she had been associated with ACCT for a number of years, and had done some independent consulting for the CEO search division of that organization. She further informed us that her role was that of a reference checker. Her understanding of the ACCT's search process, its professional method of operation, and its direct association with Trustees across the nation, I feel, led to her vote for the selection of ACCT to lead the search for a new chancellor. I am convinced that Harriett believes, as I believe, she had no conflict of interest relating to our selecting ACCT to help search for our new chancellor. I too, was a strong supporter for ACCT as our search coordinator; after all, we were, are, and will be part of this fine organization. Sincerely, Lee Rhodes Member, Board of Trustees, Saddleback Community College District. 

[NOTE: Frogue and Williams--and later the union--exaggerated and misrepresented Walther's technical violation of conflict-of-interest provisions.] 

 


4/28/94 

Irvine Valley College Voice 

A campus divided 

By Andi Atwater Staff Writer 

Amid concerns about enrollment decline, higher tuition and a slimmer community college budget, a heated pot of controversy still simmers among Irvine Valley College Academic Senate members and the district Board of Trustees. 

At a public meeting of the Board of Trustees on April 11, Trustee Steven Frogue alleged that the recent presidential election for a new Academic Senate president at IVC was "seriously flawed," indicating that one ballot had been changed, and that preference to vote was given to some faculty members who were out of town. 

In addition, Frogue listed concerns he had about the results of the Fact Finding Committee, a committee formed by the IVC Academic Senate to investigate the questions surrounding the February reprimand of Academic Senate President Wendy Phillips. "Criticisms of it range all the way from the Spanish Inquisition carried out by fifth graders to the right hand didn't know what the right hand was doing," Frogue said. 

In response to the allegations made by Frogue, Bill Hewitt, director of special programs at IVC and co-chair of the Fact-Finding Committee, addressed the Board at the April 25 public meeting at Saddleback College. Hewitt said that the comments regarding the Senate elections at IVC and about the Fact Finding Committee were "slanderous and with disregard for the truth." "To call members of this committee 'fifth graders' is ludicrous and distasteful," said Hewitt, who said he is now pursuing legal counsel because of the "slanderous remarks to my character and integrity." 

Hewitt, who helped count the ballots for the Academic Senate presidential election in which Peter Morrison won with a 38-36 vote, said that every step was taken to ensure a clean and fair election and that Frogue was present during ballot counts and the subsequent discussions but that "he chose not to represent the facts" to the Board. However, underlying concern seems to be focused on the division between faculty members at IVC. 

"I'm just concerned because the idea of shared governance is an item that so many of us are very concerned with here," said Frogue. "In the year that I have spent meeting with IVC people, it has become apparent of a very deep division on that campus." 

But according to Hewitt, more communication between the relatively new Board members and the IVC faculty may serve to ease some of the tensions that have built this year. "As the Board becomes more seasoned, they will realize that we need to communicate and to help this college address more issues of importance such as student enrollment decline," Hewitt said. 

A general consensus among school administrators is an appeal to look at the bottom line of what IVC is all about. "Teachers are teaching, students are learning and the staff is supporting," said IVC President Anna McFarlin. "That is what's going on at Irvine Valley College." 


 6/6/94 

Steven Frogue's "Board member report" at June board meeting 

The Irvine Valley College Academic Senate election results are still a source of great concern to me. 

Two meetings ago (May 5, 1994) the Academic Senate had voted 14 to 3 to hold an election to amend its by-laws and hold a new election of officers. This action was taken due to the irregular nature of the previous officer election (for president only, in April rather than January, without names having been published in the Senate agenda, questions about ballot box supervision during the election, questions about where the ballot box was first opened, and questions about how many ballots had been changed, why some faculty members were not allowed to vote by proxy while others were, why no tally of the vote was announced, the chain of possession of the ballots after the "non-announcement" of the talley, and the question of why one candidate was told he was the only candidate for president the day before Spring vacation.) 

The very fact that an untenured faculty member could come within inches of being elected (48.64% of the vote) against a long time faculty member in a highly suspect election procedure is, I believe, evidence of the deep division within a school that we are now in the process of choosing a new president for. That the violations of the Senate by-laws were serious was evidenced by the fact that it was agreed that the by-laws should be amended or suspended and a new election of officers be scheduled. 

This board heard no complaint from me regarding this proper procedure to undo the mess created by the old Senate leadership. All of that work was undone at the next Senate meeting (May 19, 1994). The chief beneficiary of that highly flawed election spent the weekend "brainstorming with myself" (surely the nadir of 'shared governance') and came up with a new torturous twist (copy attached) to lend credence to what has to be the shabbiest election I have ever seen in my life. 

And the reason for the NEW plan? THE BY-LAWS HADN'T BEEN FOLLOWED! This Orwellian exercise, more appropriate to Animal Farm than one of the campuses in our district, cannot go unchallenged. According to our district legal counsel the governing board has the obligation, "To recognize the Academic Senate and to authorize the faculty (the Academic Senate) to fix and amend by vote the composite structure and procedures of the Academic Senate, and to carry on their necessary functions within their own organization." That the IVC Senate did not follow the by-laws of its own constitution makes its leadership invalid, and this board, I feel, should withdraw recognition of this organization until such time as it follows its own procedures regarding elections. 

We live in a nation planted thick with laws and by-laws. They are there for a reason. One needn't look far in Irvine to see that that fine community has had its reputation besmirched by the Lincoln Savings and Loan Scandal, the Irvine Temporary Housing Agency embezzlement scheme, and the more recent Pension Company scandal where $125 million has disappeared. 

How did these tragedies occur? Because people didn't follow the rules, and those responsible for overseeing them were asleep at the switch. This is not going to happen in this district. There have been too many reports and too many observations of shady activities up to and inculding [sic] attempts to manipulate the chancellor search process and even the trustee elections of this district. 

Our district legal counsel also reported that "It appears that there is no history of cases between the Academic Senate and Boards of Trustees that would establish specific rights, privileges, or responsibilities of either the trustees or the Academic Senate." Maybe the time has come for us all to seek some guidelines in this area. I would welcome such a move so as to keep our house in order. 

The question arises, "Who had the Academic Affairs committee of the IVC Academic Senate look into the election procedure?" Where is their report? Was not the Senate action of May 5, 1994, taken because of that report? (i.e., to amend the by-laws and hold a new election) The sheet of proposed actions presented to the academic senate by the winner of the disputed election include a preliminary paragraph where it is stated, "The findings of the Academic Affairs Committee are entered into the record. (again, who authorized such a report, and where is the report?) The Senate takes formal action to accept these findings. Acceptance signifies that the Senate concurs with the findings of the Academic Affairs committee. So, if indeed, the Academic Affairs Committee recommended that the by-laws be amended and new elections be held, the Senate accepts, enters, and then concurs with the findings, and then proceeds to completely ignore them. 

I leave to public perusal the remnant of that obtuse document (PROPOSED ACTIONS). I feel it is a rather worthless document created in an attempt to shore up a crumbling power base, created by a highly irregular election. And let me add in conclusion that I listened to several senators say that these flawed procedures were "not strange", "not uncharacteristic" "not different", and "not inappropriate" actions and that "We always violate by-laws" and that such actions are part of "a history of the place." It is that very attitude that has caused the deep division on the IVC campus. 

A small clique has become a law unto themselves, bending the rules when necessary to perpetuate their own power, to the detriment of the campus as a whole. It is a problem that cannot be solved by ignoring it. Too many persons at IVC have approached me saying that they're simply fatigued into submission, or threatened or yelled at, and for teachers who want to teach, they're ready to give up the fight. That this board has a clear duty in this matter is obvious. We've heard enough from staff members, past and present, to give us insight into the problem. I believe it can also give us insight into the solution. [Note: punctuation is in the original.] 

Jody Hoy and friend

1995 

1/31/95 

Letter to Steven Frogue from Joyce Greenspan, Regional Director, ADL 

Dear Mr. Frogue: 

We have been contacted by several individuals who attended the January 23, 1995 Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees meeting. A transcript of the meeting indicates that you responded to the Irvine Valley College President's report on the Anti-Defamation League's Holocaust Oral History Project. Following your comments with regard to the project, you falsely accused the Anti-Defamation League's San Francisco regional office of conducting illegal fact-finding activities against citizens and organizations. In November of 1993, the San Francisco District Attorney concluded an investigation of the Anti-Defamation League's local information gathering activities. No criminal charges were brought against ADL or any of its employees or researchers. No fines or penalties were imposed and the League's agreement with the District Attorney expressly recognizes ADL's right to continue to gather and disseminate information in any lawful and constitutionally protected manner. As part of the agreement, and in accordance with ADL activities and programs around the country, ADL established a hate crimes reward fund and assists in sponsoring a program which trains local assistant district attorneys and schoolteachers to sensitize children about issues of bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. After reviewing your remarks, it is clear that you have not reviewed the facts relating to the San Francisco case in its entirety. The Anti-Defamation League's mission since 1913, is to fight anti-Semitism through programs, seminars and research to counteract the hatred, prejudice and bigotry of which we are all concerned. Research and fact-finding is the very backbone of the reports the ADL publishes to help educate the public and safeguard our democratic system. Because of the number of complaints received at our office about your comments, and because the statements were made at the trustees meeting, this letter has been shared with the other Trustees and the Irvine Valley College President in order to correct the misinformation and misimpressions your listeners may have received. 

—Sincerely, JOYCE GREENSPAN Regional Director 


2/23/95 

Irvine Valley College Academic Senate RESOLUTION 

Resolution of the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate 

Whereas the Academic Senate of Irvine Valley College is a faculty organization duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of the California Education Code and the California Code of Regulations, charged with representing the faculty of Irvine Valley College on academic and professional matters, as enumerated in statute and regulation; 

And whereas membership and voting rights in the academic senate are held by all members of the faculty, as provided in the constitution and as adopted by the members of that organization; 

And whereas the faculty, acting through the agency of its own senate, may organize itself and conduct its business; may attend to its responsibilities and fix, amend, or interpret its own rules as it determines appropriate and fitting; may select its own representatives through its own internal processes; and may do so without the approval, authorization, or interference of persons not members of the organization, including college and district administrators and members of the governing board; 

And whereas Trustee Steven Frogue, in the performance of his duties as an elected official, has sought to intrude upon the affairs of the faculty, and has repeatedly accused the academic senate of presumed actions or inactions contrary to fact; 

And whereas these actions of Trustee Frogue are incommensurate with the office he holds and with the position of public trust he has assumed; 

Therefore, be it resolved that the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate appeals to the governing board to direct Trustee Frogue to cease his interference in the affairs of the faculty and the business of the academic senate; 

and Be it also resolved that the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate reaffirms its explicit desire and intention to work constructively with college and district administrators, with college staff and students, with our colleagues at Saddleback College and across the state, with the community, and with the local trustees in a cooperative, collegial, and progressive manner to the betterment of our students and to the improvement of our instructional programs. 

So resolved, by roll-call vote, February 23, 1995 


 2/23/95 

Irvine Valley College Voice "Are you now, or have you ever been a member?" 

[VOICE] 

By Ked Francis Staff Writer 

An Irvine Valley College class on the Holocaust has been called into question by a college district trustee due to the professor's involvement in a Holocaust project. 

The trustee's criticism of the project and its sponsor the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has prompted a faculty protest focusing on academic freedom. 

Saddleback Community College Trustee Steven Frogue has publicly questioned the role of the ADL in Professor Richard Prystowsky's class and the Holocaust Oral History Project, saying he is "distressed" that Prystowsky "is a Holocaust scholar and heavily involved in the Anti-Defamation League of Orange County's Holocaust Project." 

According to Prystowsky, the Oral History Project was created by the ADL to document on film the testimony of Nazi death camp survivors, as well as rescuers and liberators of the potential victims of Hitler's final solution. 

Prystowsky, like all participants in the project, is a volunteer. "After World War II, the survivors of the Holocaust issued a challenge to succeeding generations that we never forget their suffering, said Prystowsky; he has been doing his part through his course on the Holocaust, which he says is based in part on what he has learned through the ADL's Oral History Project. 
Prystowsky says that he is "disturbed" by Frogue's comments, but he seems calm in the face of the controversy the comments have created on campus. 

"I want to believe his intentions are noble, but, after reading a transcript of his remarks, I am left confused by his points and his intentions." 

Frogue spoke out against the ADL at the Jan. 23, 1995 meeting of the Board of Trustees, alleging that the ADL has conducted a "massive espionage apparatus against thousands of law abiding American citizens."' According to Frogue, the conspiracy is widespread. The ADL has been "violating the rights of Americans, working in conjunction illegally with various police departments and police agencies, federal, state, and local." 

Frogue also mentioned Alex Odeh as a member of one of the groups the ADL maintains files on, saying he was "blown to bits about seven years ago." 

Frogue did not elaborate on what role, if any, he feels the ADL or anyone else had in the death of Odeh, an activist for peace in the Middle East. 

Efforts by The Voice to reach Frogue for comment were unsuccessful. 

While the Oral History Project is sponsored by the ADL (in conjunction with the U.S. Holocaust Museum) the ADL has nothing to do with the IVC Holocaust class. 

"The ADL provides no funding, no administrative help, no official or unofficial help whatsoever.
It is strictly an IVC class," stressed Prystowsky. 

The project and the ADL were honored by IVC in 1994, receiving the McFarlin Distinguished Service Award at the annual IVC Foundation Award dinner. 

The ADL was founded in 1913 and is dedicated to fighting and-Semitism and promoting tolerance. 

IVC faculty members have been more outspoken than the diplomatic Prystowsky in criticizing the trustee. At a Feb. 10 meeting of the Academic Senate, the room came to life as the agenda was finished and the floor was opened to general comment. Professor Linda Thomas started the discussion by reading a letter from Marjorie Luesebrink, the Chair of the Humanities and Languages Department. The letter reflected the school's pride in Prystowsky and his work both in the classroom and with the Holocaust Oral History Project, and confirmed the department's encouragement of faculty involvement in such projects as a part of their academic freedom and professional growth. 

As faculty members expressed their views, it became clear that this was not their first dispute with Frogue. His comments were called a challenge to their academic freedom, and a further attempt by the trustee to malign the faculty. Professor Frank Marmolejo said he and his colleagues are "outraged" and that such remarks coming from a public officer in a public forum are "insensitive, inappropriate and irresponsible. We would have hoped for more from an educator, and we certainly expect better from a board member," Marmolejo added in a subsequent statement to The Voice. 

The Senate voted 17 to 0, with two abstentions, to draft a resolution addressing deep concern over Frogue's statements and the chilling effect they may have on the faculty's academic freedom, including the right to join groups and associate with whomever they choose without fear of retribution. 

For the faculty the issue isn't whether or not the ADL contributes to an IVC class (it doesn't), or whether Prystowsky is now or has ever been a member of the ADL (he isn't and has never been). The issue isn't even whether the ADL engaged in "espionage" as Frogue claims, although the San Francisco District Attorney brought no criminal charges and issued no fines or penalties at the conclusion of its investigation into the subject. 

The issue, according to Marmolejo and others in the IVC faculty, is whether an elected official has the right to question the freedom of any IVC teacher, student or employee to join (or not join) groups or volunteer for projects that interest him or her. Marmolejo is "deeply troubled by Mr. Frogue's assumption that the private and professional associations of any faculty are legitimate matters of concern of board members. Professor Prystowsky's associations are expressions of his individual rights and his academic freedom," he said. 

For his part, Prystowsky remains philosophical. His small office is decorated with posters celebrating tolerance. As students wait in the hallway, he patiently explains to one how to improve her paper on animal rights. 

Once all the students have been counseled, he suggests a rapprochement in the quickly escalating controversy over Frogue's statements. "I know a number of people are very upset by the trustee's comments," he said, "and I appreciate the support I have received. But I don't seek further confrontation. I would like to see reconciliation, both meaningful and profound, so that we can move forward in our work with the support, encouragement and understanding of the board." 

As Prystowsky leaves his office, the closed door reveals a poster. The photograph depicts babies of all races. All are smiling. All seem happy and content. The text on the poster reads: "We are not born to hate. But too many die because of hate." 

"I met Mr. Frogue once,'' Prystowsky concludes. "He was in the IVC bookstore buying books for his son, who was in one of my classes. It was an English class and one of the required books was by Eli Weisel. He said he was going to give the books to his son as a Christmas present. I thought that was nice." 


 3/2/95 

The now-defunct "Irvine World News"

Irvine World News 

What's your point, Steve? [IWN OPINION] 

Summary: The Saddleback Community College board is being led down too many side roads by board member Steven Frogue. 

It's unclear what Saddleback Community College board member Steven Frogue is attempting to accomplish. At recent board meetings, Mr. Frogue has been indulging in repetitious, lengthy, and at times antagonistic monologues about such disparate things as the Anti-defamation League of B'nai B'rith and faculty senate elections at Irvine Valley College. At its Feb. 27 meeting, Mr. Frogue took up about 45 minutes of the board's time on these matters. Mr. Frogue, a teacher at Foothill High School in Tustin and a resident of Lake Forest, is Irvine's representative on the community college board of trustees. During board meetings in January and February, Mr. Frogue has made some startling remarks about what the Jewish organization is doing these days. Another board member, Marcia Milchiker, a former ADL leader in Orange County, told Mr. Frogue he is misinformed about the organization. But he persists. And he has continued to harp on the Irvine Valley academic senate's election procedures, even though an attorney for the Saddleback board has said that the board has little or no control over how the senate conducts its business. Not unexpectedly, the academic senate has asked the board to order Mr. Frogue to stop interfering in its affairs. The ADL has asked for an apology from the board. What's puzzling about all of this is what these apparently tangential matters have to do with running the Saddleback Community College District? Mr. Frogue has offered only vague generalities in explanation. You'd think, especially these days when the Saddleback board faces so many other issues, that the board's time would be better spent on matters that are more on target. Judicious use of his gavel by board President John Williams would help keep things in focus. 


3/2/95(?) 

Irvine World News 

College Senate asks board to put a clamp on Frogue  

By Patrick Larkin Staff Writer 

Prystowsky
The Irvine Valley College Academic Senate asked the Saddleback Community College District board of trustees Monday night to prohibit district Trustee Steven Frogue from interfering in the senate's business. The senate also asked the board of trustees to apologize for disparaging remarks Frogue made about the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith at a January meeting. At that January meeting, Frogue accused the Anti-Defamation League of "conducting massive espionage apparatus against thousands of law-abiding American citizens." Frogue maintained the league has compiled files on hundreds of organizations including some in Orange County. Frogue didn't elaborate about the purpose. Remarks about class Frogue made his remarks after asking for information on a Holocaust class that Irvine Valley Professor Richard Prystowski [sic] is teaching. Frogue said he didn't have a problem with the class, but he had a problem with Prystowski's ties to the Anti-Defamation League's oral history project on the Holocaust. At Monday night's meeting, Frogue again brought up the Anti-Defamation League during his report to the board. He referred to a letter sent by the ADL to each board member asking for an apology and called the academic senate's action an "intellectual drive-by shooting." Two of Frogue's colleagues, Harriett Walther and Lee Rhodes asked board President John Williams to move the agenda along, but Frogue was allowed to continue. Senate wants apology The Irvine Valley senate asked the board to "issue a public apology for and repudiation of these (Frogue's) comments," and adopt a policy statement about academic freedom. ' Frogue has been critical of the academic senate since last April when he accused the group's officers of rigging senate President Peter Morrison's election. The trustees has brought up the allegations from time to time, even after college district attorneys issued an opinion that the board had no control over how the senate does its business. At January's meeting, Frogue continued his line of questioning about this year's elections and the nominating committee. Morrison refused to answer any of Frogue's questions and got up and left the meeting. Monday night, Frogue started in on Morrison again. Doubts validity "For the second year in a row, there is no election that is valid," Frogue said. "Out of the 20 people that showed interest in running for positions, none of them ended up running. Why?" During his report on the academic senate, Morrison refused to answer Frogue's questions, but did read another resolution from the senate. "(The senate) appeals to the governing board to direct Trustee Frogue to cease his interference in the affairs of the faculty and the business of the academic senate." The board of trustees will consider the two resolutions at a special meeting Monday in the Saddleback College Library at 3 p.m. 


 3/23/95: 

Irvine Valley College Voice Trustee calls IVC senate 'intellectual spur posse' 

The IVC VOICE

By Ked Francis Staff Writer 

Trustee Steven Frogue continued his month-long attack on the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate and the Anti-Defamation League at a Feb. 27 Board of Trustees' meeting, despite attempts by fellow trustees to reign him in Frogue labeled the reading of IVC Senate resolutions condemning his conduct as an "intellectual drive-by shooting," and referred to the Senate itself as an "intellectual spur posse," an apparent reference to the infamous Lakewood, California gang of young men who kept a tally of their sexual conquests. 

The IVC resolutions, read by Senate President Peter Morrison, called for Frogue to "cease his interference in the affairs of the faculty" and condemned his Jan. 23 comments criticizing the ADL and questioning the group's role in Professor Richard Prystowsky's course on the Holocaust. Prystowsky is involved in the ADL's Holocaust Oral History Project, which documents the experiences of Nazi death camp survivors. Frogue's accusations of espionage by the ADL were characterized in the IVC Senate's resolution as questioning the "personal affiliation and, by inference, the integrity" of Prystowsky and his Holocaust course. 

Members of the Board of Trustees tried various tactics in an unsuccessful attempt to limit Frogue's comments and keep the meeting focused on its agenda. Board President John Williams and Trustee Lee Rhodes cited legal limitations on the scope and length of a trustee's comments, but failed to rule Frogue out of order. Trustee Joan Hueter suggested a vote to limit trustee reports to five minutes. Her suggestion will be on the agenda at a future meeting. 

The trustees' actions did not dissuade Frogue from again attacking the ADL and its supporters as "thought police" and engaging in an extended diatribe focusing on a Jan. 31 ADL letter criticizing his previous comments. The only forceful opposition to Frogue at the meeting was presented by Trustee Harriet Walther. In response to his continued criticism of the IVC Senate, Walther said that the Board has "been advised repeatedly by legal counsel that the activities of the senates are their own business, not ours." Walther asked President Williams to call Frogue out of order and to "ask him not to continue this harangue." Later, Walther's comments were more pointed. She called Frogue's comments associating the ADL with espionage "outrageous" and his statements are "similar to those being promulgated by organizations that are Holocaust deniers."

Frogue denied questioning the occurrence of the Holocaust, claiming he had never mentioned denial of the Holocaust in his life. Walther responded, "Well, you dance around that one don't you." 

In an interview with The Voice, Frogue called Walther's comments a "part of the big lie campaign--tell a lie that's so stunning that it leaves people speechless. I never said that...it's just appalling." 

In the same interview, Frogue questioned whether groups that deny the Holocaust exist. He also hinted at possible links between an alleged ADL activist Frogue identifies as Tom Gerard and the death of Middle East peace activist Alex Odeh, whom he had mentioned at the Jan. 31 Board meeting. Frogue also suggests possible links between Gerard and an arson fire at the Torrance headquarters of a Holocaust revisionist group, the Institute for Historical Review. 

"Whatever their opinion about the Holocaust, if it's garbage, expose it to the light of day, why bomb their headquarters and burn all their information and research," Frogue said. "Then I say 'wait a minute, is it maybe they have uncovered some stuff that the public should know? Should they be able to enter the debate?'" 



3/23/95: 

Irvine Valley College Voice 

Excerpt from "A conversation with Steven Frogue," page 8 

THE VOICE: Are there lines you shouldn't cross in open debate? For example, should there be open debate with groups who claim the holocaust didn't occur? 

 FROGUE: There is a group, right here in Orange County, called the Institute for Historical Review...they have raised questions about some of this stuff. 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. In 1984 their headquarters in Torrance was burned to the ground. Maybe that guy was back from his CIA stint. The guy who killed Alex Odeh, I don't know. It was not terribly long after that the FBI reported most of the terrorist actions in the United States in that previous year had been by pro-Israeli groups...Whatever their opinion about the Holocaust, if it's garbage, expose it to the light of day, why bomb their headquarters and burn all their information and research? Then I say, "Wait a minute," is it maybe they have uncovered some stuff that the public should know? Should they be able to enter the debate? 

 THE VOICE: Why are you no longer teaching? 

 FROGUE: I don't know. They reassigned me without consulting me or my department chairman. It makes no sense for me to spend all day supervising students...while my fellow teachers in my department are teaching 48 student classes. 

 THE VOICE: Are you being disciplined? 

 FROGUE: If it was anything like that, it was not brought to my attention. The only reason I was given was that I would do a good job here. I think it's a waste of taxpayer money. It could be run by campus supervisors...and here you have detention run by the best historian, the best history teacher in the school, maybe in the district, who knows, maybe even in the country. I think I'm good, judge for yourself. It just doesn't make sense. 

Trusty Teddi Lorch, the union's choice


4/4/95: 

OC Register 

Teacher's view of Holocaust stirs furor 

EDUCATION: Steven Frogue is embroiled in controversy at school-and at the community college district where he is a trustee. 

By DAN FROOMKIN 

The Orange County Register 

TUSTIN-Some students at Foothill High School say history teacher Steven Frogue told them the Holocaust never happened. Others say Frogue called his Asian students "yellow people," made derogatory remarks about other minorities and frequently quoted historical figures who used racist terms. 

Last summer, after complaints from parents, Tustin Unified School District Officials pulled the 27-year teacher out of his classroom He's spending this year in charge of detention. 

But Frogue denies the allegations. And after he filed a grievance, the Tustin school board voted to send him back to his classroom next fall. The district's teacher contract doesn't allow administrators to reassign teachers for disciplinary reasons. Officials said they can't discuss the case because it is a confidential personnel matter. 
Frogue, an ex-Marine and a Presbyterian deacon, said he has no racist feelings and would never deny that the Holocaust took place. "It would be insane to say something like that," he said. Yet for the past two months, Frogue has been using another pulpit-his position on the board of Saddleback Community College District-to make controversial comments about the Anti- Defamation League, a Jewish organization that fights anti-Semitism and chronicles the Holocaust. And the furor exploded last week when Frogue told the Irvine Valley College student newspaper that he believes the Institute for Historical Review has "raised questions" about the Holocaust that should perhaps "enter the debate." 

The institute, based in Costa Mesa, is the nation's foremost center of holocaust denial. Even as the world prepares to mark the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, the institute's members say the Nazis never had a policy of systematically exterminating Jews and call the widely accepted figure of about 6 million Jewish victims a wild exaggeration.

Frogue said he has raised questions, both in class and out, about the number of Jews killed. "Was it 6 million who died?" Frogue asked, saying he wonders "whether it's the number of people who were actually killed, or the number of people who actually died, or the number of people who were actually put in the gas chambers." But he called it "absolutely undeniable that a calamity of the first magnitude occurred." 

Frogue ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Chris Cox in the Republican Congressional primaries in 1992 and 1994, and he describes himself as a conspiracy theorist who believes the assassination of President Kennedy was not the work of a lone gunman. 

He has been married to a fellow teacher for 28 years and lives in Mission Viejo. 

At Foothill, an 1,800-student high school in affluent, unincorporated North Tustin, several colleagues have come to Frogue's defense. 

"He certainly has been accused of various things, but having taught for many years I realize that students don't always understand or hear what is being said," fellow teacher Marilyn Reardon said. "I think he's a very fine, upstanding citizen." 

Some students interviewed were supportive as well. "He's opinionated," said senior Michele Churnack, 17. "But I learned more in his class than I did in any other class." 

But several students recalled comments that they found shocking and offensive. Junior Emily Hoffman, 16, took Frogue's World Cultures class as a freshman. "He decided that the Holocaust was made up," Hoffman recalled. "He basically said that the Jews made it up to make people feel sorry for them, because he decided that it was impossible for so many people to have been killed in such a short amount of time," she said. "He said that it was more like 60 people that got killed, rather than 6 million. 
 
"I would raise my hand and tell him, 'That's wrong,' and he would just really get mad at me and send me out of the class." Classmate Leah Killen, 17, also recalled Frogue's comments about the Holocaust. "He said it never happened." She said. Frogue said he doesn't recall any such comment. 

"I can't think of anything even close to that that I would have said," he said. Hoffman's friend Stacey Marcus, taking the same course during a different class period, started taking careful notes after Hoffman told her what she had heard. Marcus' notebook contains several statements she found anti-Semitic. From her notes on a lecture about the Ottoman Empire: "Five percent of all Jewish people are bad, but 95 percent are just as good as the rest of us." Frogue said he might have said that, but in a general context. "It would have been in a general statement about how you take any group, and there's probably 5 percent bad." 

Senior Wendy Hayashi, 18, had Frogue last year for advanced-placement U.S. history. "He said some really racist things that really really hurt a lot of his Asian students," Hayashi said.

"There was this one time, I forget what he was talking about, but he called us 'yellow people.'" Hayashi said he also referred to Mexicans as "brown people." 

"He always characterized ethnicity by color, and it really bothered me. Maybe he was trying to be funny, but it didn't work." 

Senior Jeanette Anderson, 18, said Frogue "would pick specific quotes using derogatory terms" and repeat them "over and over." One time, one of those quotes included a derogatory word for blacks. "It was shocking. My eyes almost came out of my head," Anderson said. 

Two years ago, after Hoffman told her mother what Frogue had said about the Holocaust, Diane Hoffman went to see Foothill's then-principal, Janis Jones. Diane Hoffman said Jones gave her the impression that hers wasn't the first complaint. "She explained to me that it was the students' word against his, that he had been counseled and he had been monitored and they hadn't seen anything, and unless somebody had it on tape recorder or had absolute proof, there was nothing she could do." 

Jones, now an assistant superintendent, said she can't comment on personnel matters. 

Students said Frogue avoided the topic of the Holocaust last year. "He'd say, 'I know I'm going to get in trouble if I talk about it,'" said Allison Haines, 18. But at the end of the year, Frogue was reassigned to run "on-campus suspension"--a sort of all-day detention program. 

At the community college district, Frogue raised eyebrows in January by expressing concern about links between Professor Richard Prystowsky's Understanding the Holocaust class and the Anti-Defamation League, which he called a threat to academic freedom. Prystowsky, in turn, expressed concern over Frogue's suggestion that the Institute for Historical Review should be taken seriously in academic circles. 

"What are we possibly gaining there in listening to such an absurd point of view?" he asked.

Frogue, meanwhile, said he is happy to be heading back to the classroom. 

"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 

The Saddleback Community College District must prioritize its resources and restructure its budget to accommodate a growing enrollment. Increased class offerings and improved community service can only be achieved through budget restructuring. Students cannot get into required classes to complete their programs. Redirecting funds will increase the number of basic courses transferable to state universities and offer additional job-skill classes. Only 35% of Saddleback District's $70 million annual budget is spent on classroom instruction compared to grade and high school allocations averaging 65%. The District makes huge expenditures on a hierarchy of administrators, consultants and attorneys, but no proper cost accounting is made available to the public. A majority of' District 'Trustees must be willing to force the administration to become student centered. Some current Trustees recognize this and will join my efforts to slash bureaucratic spending and establish prudent objectives I support community outreach through satellite centers offering basic and Emeritus courses. I favor college activities promoting traditional values and responsibility. Saddleback and Irvine Valley Colleges must focus on student needs and fiscal accountability. I promise to work for those goals. Thirty years [sic] experience in higher education and private business has prepared me for the position of Trustee. 

(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

Harriett Walther has organized a campaign to elect a board of trustees which will do her bidding. Since the time it was discovered and publicly announced that Walther had been taking monetary payments from district contractors, she has been on a campaign for retribution. Walther was cited by the California State Fair Political Practices Commission (case #94/120) and she thus decided to retire. To quote the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) summary of the case: "It appears that you (Walther) have violated the conflict of interest provisions of the Act. Please be advised that failure to properly disqualify yourself from Board decisions in the future which could have a financial effect on your interest could result in enforcement action against you. In addition the circumstances of this case would be used as aggravations information in any future prosecution we may bring against you for violations of the Act." Walther has recently hand-picked some candidates and has formed a political action committee called Partners in Education (P.I.E.) from which she plans to launch an era of chaos in the Saddleback Community College District. 

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 

On the local level, your Association is actively involved in the Board of Trustee Elections. This year we are supporting: John Williams (Incumbent) Steve Frogue (Incumbent) Dorothy Fortune (Former Associate Saddleback Professor) Don Davis (Business Owner) Our Endorsement process followed the Standard CTA procedure. A volunteer committee interviewed each perspective candidate. It was a unanimous agreement on the decision to endorse based on the preparation of candidates and the answers to questions at interviews and the past voting record of incumbents. The committee tried to keep in mind the representation of the total faculty. We interviewed each of the candidates separately. Each candidate was given a copy of the questions in advance. They were all asked question about their attitude toward the faculty in general, faculty salary increases when fiscally responsible and about specific racial, culture, and religious issues. Some questions have been asked about why we did not support a total incumbent slate. We take our job very seriously. At some point it was a unanimous opinion that we were not clear that all incumbents were serious about running again. In addition, some of the responses of incumbents to questions that were supplied in advance relating to maintaining the current salary schedule and restoring the five steps that were taken off, were totally unacceptable. We did our best to represent you and your interest and will continue to do so. Come and join us. Get involved. If you have not joined the Faculty Association, please take the opportunity to do so. Your membership chairs are: Ray Chandos at Irvine Valley College, and Lee Walker at Saddleback College. If you have any question about membership, please give one of them a call. 

 —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: 

A. Walther was paid by a consulting group which eventually got a district contract (i.e. tax money payments). 

B. Walther lobbied to give the consulting group $30,000 of Saddleback district tax money to help in a hiring procedure (something which can easily be done by people already on salary in the district). 

C. As reported in board meetings, other board members quickly realized that the $30,000 was completely wasted and that Walther was using the consulting group to manipulate the hiring procedure. 

D. Where did all the tax money go? To Walther's friends in the consulting group who had paid Walther $30,000 in tax money in just this one instance [sic] was completely wasted, gone forever. 

(7) We agree that entirely too much faculty money and energy was spent on publicizing the truth about Walther's PIE group. The only reason it was necessary is because Walther will not leave us (faculty, administrators and staff) in peace to do our jobs. 

The traumatic events and expenses of the last few months were instigated entirely by the activities of Walther's PIE. We must continue to inform the public as long as the PIE danger is there for the students. We are confident that the voters of the college district, if they have the truth, will vote wisely in the 1998 election as they did in 1996, when all PIE candidates got only a minority of the total vote. 

Editor's note: On Oct. 29 two Faculty Association members requested advertising space in the Oct. 31 issue, six days after the advertising deadline. Before signing a contract, they understood and agreed their ad would run 



Nov. 7, 1996

Lariat

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

Hewitt responds to paid advertisement 

I would like to respond to the "Paid Advertisement" that was printed in the Lariat on November 7, regarding the following accusation: "IVC employee Pamela Hewitt (wife of IVC instructor Bill Hewitt) uses totalitarian tactics to prevent distribution of literature." In no way did I prevent Sharon MacMillan from "distribution of literature." As stated in my original letter to the Lariat, I described the actions that took place when I witnessed a person unknown to me at the time of the incident, but later identified as Sharon MacMillan, distributing political material on vehicle windows in the staff parking lot. I asked Ms MacMillan three questions: • Have you been given approval to distribute campaign related materials? She said she had been given approval. • I inquired as to the name of the person giving the approval. Ms. MacMillan did not respond. • I then asked for her name, she again did not respond, and [she] immediately left in her car. I then reported the incident to the college president. Please remember at the time this took place, I was under the impression that, according to a memo sent by Vice Chancellor Hodge regarding Board Policy #4054, the distribution of politically related material on college campus was not a legal action. I frankly can't understand where someone could come up with the idea from the incident truthfully described above that I used totalitarian tactics to prevent distribution of literature. Also, I've always believed that unions were intended to support the workers and not to slander them. Perhaps the bigger question is whether or not the rank and file of the faculty association truly supports the current leadership. I would encourage you to interview members of the association as to their views on these types of tactics and wasteful spending of their union dollars in such a vindictive manner. 

—Pamela R. Hewitt 


PIE ["Partners in Education" PAC] responds to Association letter 

Since my name was mentioned in the October 31 issue of your paper in an article submitted by the Saddleback Community College District Faculty Association, I feel it is necessary to present some facts. 

I am not a "front person" for anyone. I have been a student in the district for 10 years. I joined Partners in Education because I was interested in electing to the Board of Trustees persons who were independent thinkers, beholden to no one, people who could bring to the board of trustees broader perspective and experience, particularly in the areas of business and finance. 

I helped select and interview prospective candidates. Early in the campaign I received a phone call from a woman who would not give her name but said she was on the faculty at Saddleback. She asked me about Partners in Education, and I told her what our objectives were as presented in our literature. But I couldn't satisfy her and she kept probing. I suggested she needed to talk to someone who was more knowledgeable about college affairs and suggested she call trustee Harriett Walther, who has been a trustee for 19 years. 

Faculty member Ken Woodward also called me and asked much the same questions and was not satisfied with my answers. So I also referred him to Walther. Since neither of them called Walther, it became obvious to me they both had ulterior motives. This motive subsequently became apparent as a device to discredit PE and its candidates by vilifying Walther. 

Partners' candidates and supporters, from the start, wished to carry out a positive, honest campaign, presenting their ideas for the future of the colleges. They rejected even the suggestion of engaging in any negative campaigning. I wish their opponents had taken the same high road. I am appalled to think that faculty members, and by extension candidates supported by them, who carried out this scurrilous vendetta, are exhibiting such unethical behavior. It is a reprehensible example to our young people. 

—Judith Odlum

 

Instructor dislikes Association tactics 

[BAUER] 

Roy Bauer

Those poor bastards in Garden Grove! What must it be like being represented by an unprincipled and loathsome bully like Bob Dornan? 

But I do know what it is like! For, as an instructor in the Saddleback Community College District, I am represented by the Faculty Association, which, of late, has operated like a squadron of B-l Bobs. 

Why do I say this? Well, a few weeks ago, the FA distributed a flier that offered textbook examples of unfairness and fallacy. For instance, it alleged the guilt of one person, suggesting that her guilt somehow taints those with whom she is associated, namely, trustee candidates not endorsed by the FA. This is called the fallacy of "guilt by association."

Further, the flier neglected to explain the "mitigating factors" that, it revealed caused authorities not to prosecute the alleged guilty party. That is called "suppressing evidence." 

Then the FA came out in support of trustee candidates who, it seems, are not always of the highest caliber. For instance, FA favorite Steven Frogue is a fan of conspiracy theories and has spoken in praise of a local Holocaust "revisionist" organization (see IVC's Voice, 3/23/95).

Before the recent election, he and the FA-endorsed candidates were promoted in an expensive mailer that implied, absurdly, that the Big Issue that faces our district is the specter of "Same sex 'marriage' domestic benefits." The mailer, which, as far as I know, was not condemned by the candidates engaged in what can only be described as "distortion" and "pandering." 

And now the FA has paid for an ad in the Lariat that, among other things, subjects a recent FA critic to innuendo and reports unverified accusations of misconduct at IVC. With regard to the latter, the FA, said the ad, was not itself accusing anyone of anything; it was "merely reporting" complaints that have been "received." 

This is called "cowardice." 

—Roy Bauer 

 Chair, Dept. of Humanities, Irvine Valley College

 

11/22/96 

OC Weekly Letters, OC WEEKLY: 

TEACHERS, TEACH THYSELVES 

LISA ALVAREZ

I agree with R. Scott Moxley's characterization of one particular piece of campaign literature produced during the recent Saddleback Community College District board elections ("Adventures in advertising," Nov. 15).

Moxley called the "Taxpayer Alert" scurrilous and vile, a description that also fits the role played by the Saddleback Community College District Faculty Association in the election. 

As Moxley notes, one slate of candidates ran a high-profile campaign infused with homophobic rhetoric. That the association supports candidates who strengthen and capitalize on such prejudices is indefensible. 

During the election season, it's always interesting to see whom the captains of campaigns will toss overboard in order to sail on to victory. As an associate professor of English at Irvine Valley College, I can say that the gay and lesbian faculty of Irvine Valley and Saddleback College and the faculty whose classes contain gay and lesbian content are shocked and saddened to find ourselves tossed into such rough, unfriendly waters by our colleagues—a powerful minority willing to sacrifice the rest of us—along with a hard-fought academic freedom-in order to fatten their salaries and pensions. 

—Lisa Alvarez, Laguna Beach 


11/25/96 

LA Times, A1: Studying the Lessons of Steven J. Frogue 

• Profile: The teacher and Saddleback trustee does not retreat from controversy that his views generate. 

By MICHAEL GRANBERRY TIMES STAFF WRITER 

His supporters call him a friend of the teacher, a benevolent caretaker of local schools, a loving father and family man. 

His opponents call him a demagogue, an eccentric, a flake. Too often, they say, he articulates the marginal and irrelevant. His most vocal detractors accuse him of being an anti-Semite who often takes aim at Jewish organizations and who questions the severity of the Holocaust—charges he denies and labels as "scurrilous." 

To the casual observer, Steven J. Frogue, 54, looks like everybody's favorite uncle or the high school teacher we all remember. For three decades, this curly-haired, bespectacled man has been an instructor at Foothill High School in Santa Ana. He's also an ex-Marine, a Presbyterian deacon and a recently reelected member of the Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees. 

In the Nov. 5 election, Frogue was the top vote-getter among the seven trustees, receiving 128,361 votes for a decisive 60.7%-to-38.7% win over his opponent. 

More than any facet of his public life, however, Frogue is a lightning rod for controversy. And while the criticisms he's received would offend almost anyone, Frogue seems to relish the notoriety. 

"I try to tell the truth. I try to teach the truth," he said during a recent interview, as his students filed into class. "If that's controversial, then so be it. Mark Twain said that if you tell the truth, you will gratify some and astonish the rest. That could be the epitaph of Steve Frogue." 

Frogue has been accused of denying the Holocaust, according to a former board member and several former students who say his comments about Jews and those who died at the hands of the Nazis cross over a line of ethics, propriety and recorded fact. In 1994, complaints from parents at Foothill High led to Frogue's being transferred from his history class to a one-year assignment managing a roomful of students serving detention, according to a source close to the case. A tenured instructor, Frogue appealed to the school board, which voted to return him to teaching. School officials declined comment, calling it "a personnel matter." 

What triggered the complaint, according to the source, were comments Frogue had allegedly been making in class-including skepticism about the Holocaust and derogatory references to Asians and African Americans. Frogue vehemently denies the charges and said transfer from history class to detention occurred "only because it was my turn to do it." 

Roy Bauer, chairman of the department of humanities at Irvine Valley College—one of two that the Saddleback board oversees, Saddleback College being the other—calls Frogue "an odd, Neanderthal presence on the board who's expressed an interest in Holocaust denial. He's made, and continues to make, a nuisance of himself." 

Last year, Frogue incurred the wrath of several board members and a number of professors at Irvine Valley Community College when he questioned the teaching of a course on the Holocaust by criticizing the professor's ties to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. It is that group-the ADL-that seems to be a cause celebre for Frogue, who perceives the 83-year-old human-rights organization as nothing less than a criminal violator of civil liberties and personal freedom or, as he said in an interview, a "group of spies that actively keeps files on people . . . people like me." 

(In September, the ADL reached a tentative settlement to a federal lawsuit by groups representing Arab Americans and African Americans that alleged the ADL hired intelligence agents with police ties to gather secret information about their activities. The ADL, which has contended it broke no laws and has admitted no wrongdoing, agreed to an injunction restraining it from getting information from any state employee or officer where the ADL knows or is "reckless in failing to know" that the person disclosing the information is legally forbidden from doing so. ) 

Frogue's critics wonder why he's taken up so much time at numerous trustees' meetings attacking the ADL, which even his supporters admit has virtually no relevance to the otherwise mundane tasks of a community college board in Orange County. 

Frogue's high school students voice a similar complaint, saying his lectures are often angry diatribes against the ADL, revisionist views of this or that chapter of history or passionate speeches about who actually pulled the trigger on President Kennedy. Frogue's theory of who killed Kennedy weaves some of the key threads in a tapestry that many say is unique—or, in the words of one adversary, "truly Frogueian." 

"I believe Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the ADL," Frogue said in a half-whisper during a recent interview on the Foothill High campus. Asked to repeat his assertion, Frogue said, "That's right.... I believe the ADL was behind it." The assassination not only transformed U.S. history but also the timeline of Steven Frogue, who says he "then and there" abandoned his intention to join the Peace Corps in favor of the U.S. Marines. 

Born in Oak Lawn, Ill., to a Chicago railway worker and his wife, Frogue found himself stationed at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station in 1964 and "immediately fell in love" with a county he's never left. He and his wife, an elementary school teacher, raised two sons in their Lake Forest home and with two teachers' salaries backing them paid both boys' expenses at affluent, private USC. 

"I told them, 'No girlfriends,'" Frogue said sternly. "I didn't want to be paying their way if I knew they had girlfriends or had them living in their rooms. My commitment was to pay their schooling." 

Frogue was elected to the Saddleback board in 1992 and soon underwent quintuple bypass surgery. His term proceeded uneventfully until early last year when he began his attacks on the ADL in the context of challenging the course on the Holocaust. Joyce Greenspan, regional director of the Orange County and Long Beach chapter of the Anti-Defamation League, said Frogue has been "blasting the ADL for no good reason." 

"Let's face it," Greenspan said, "he's hardly objective. From where I sit, he has a big agenda—which has nothing to do with a college board. If I were a voter who didn't do my homework and voted for this man, I'd feel betrayed. As a matter of fact, I'd feel like a real sucker." 

Despite of the political storm that followed, and the charges that Frogue is both anti-Semitic and a "denier" of the number of Jews slain in the Holocaust-both of which he denies—Frogue has remained popular with voters, a corps of pay-raise-minded teachers and a majority of fellow board members. Although having a contentious relationship with the faculty senate at Irvine Valley College—which Frogue once called "an intellectual Spur Posse"—he consistently votes large pay raises for the district's teachers, which Roy Bauer says "makes him a darling of the unionists . . . and always wins their endorsement. In other words, they vote their pocketbook, not their conscience." 

Frank Marmolejo, staff diversity officer at Irvine Valley College says he resigned his labor negotiating position four years ago, fearing the union was "shameless and corrupt.... It doesn't seem to matter to them that this man routinely makes anti-Semitic comments and exhibits behavior that is, at best, egregious. He gives them anything they want. In return, he's petty and paranoid, and the voters of Orange County have given him a bully pulpit in the form of that board." 

Donald Smith, a teacher in the Tustin school district from 1970 to 1991 and president of its teachers' association for some of those years, contends that Frogue is more "eccentric than dangerous.... There was an allegation that he was not prepared, or organized, and seemed to be distracted. I liked him personally, but he's kind of a flake, kind of far-out. He's not what you'd call a mainstream educator. Everybody thought he was a bit of an odd duck." 

Even so, Frogue enjoys a loyal following that says he's resented because he speaks his mind and doesn't care who he offends. 

"Steve is a great guy who, for the most part, is both maligned and misunderstood," said board member John Williams, one of Frogue's chief allies. "I admire and respect his intelligence and the fact that, as a fiscal conservative, he's a vigilant protector of a citizen's best interests." 

But Richard Prystowsky, who last year began teaching "Understanding the Holocaust" at Irvine Valley College, said he was "shocked" when Frogue raised questions about his course and his brief involvement with the ADL. Prystowsky once assisted the ADL on an oral history project of the Holocaust. A corps of professors came to Prystowsky's defense, claiming Frogue's comments were a violation of academic freedom. But Frogue's soliloquy on the course was merely a launching pad to what followed. His tirade against the ADL took up hours and hours of open-meeting time. 

Harriett Walther, a former board member who clashed repeatedly with Frogue, accuses him of being motivated by anger or antipathy toward Jews. Walther, who is Jewish, said Frogue's comments about the ADL and Prystowsky's course "were and are extremely hurtful" to the Orange County Jewish community. 

"So be it," Frogue said. "Let the chips fall where they may. Some people confuse the ADL with Judaism or say the ADL represents Judaism. Hey, it just isn't true." 

At one meeting, Frogue passed out a list of organizations on which the ADL allegedly keeps files-a list taken, Walther says, from an underground magazine called Covert Action. He also made a public statement at the same meeting implying that the ADL was responsible for the slaying of a Middle East peace activist named Alex Odeh. A prominent Palestinian American activist, Odeh was killed in an explosion in his Santa Ana office in 1985 after a television appearance in which he condemned terrorism and defended Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat as "a man of peace." The Justice Department in August offered a $1-million reward for information leading to the killers. 

Asked if he believes 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, Frogue said, "Of course. It was an absolute total disaster . . . one of the most appalling acts in history." But when asked about comments made last year in the Irvine Valley student newspaper, in which he made favorable remarks about the Costa Mesa-based Institute for Historical Review—assailed by academicians around the world for saying the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is exaggerated and claiming that no Jews died in gas chambers—Frogue said, "Well, I hear that they have raised some interesting questions." 

Mark Weber, the institute's codirector, said Frogue had shown up at one of the court hearings involving a legal dispute between the institute and its aging founder Willis Carto, who was recently ordered to pay his former partners more than $7 million. The AntiDefamation League once called Carto "the No. 1 anti-Semite in America." 

Although longtime adversaries of both sides in the dispute, ADL officials see Carto's opponents as the lesser of two evils. Weber said Frogue had never belonged to the institute and that he and his colleagues were suspicious of Frogue's motives. "He seemed so sympathetic with Carto," Weber said, "which set off alarm bells with us. He kept saying, 'Don't let anyone know I'm here. I might get in trouble.' I don't know.... He seemed like kind of a strange guy to me. Kind of flaky and weird." 

In the interview in the Irvine Valley College Voice, Frogue said of the institute, "Maybe they've uncovered some stuff . . . the public should know. Should they be able to enter the debate?" 

It was his use of the word "debate" that infuriated Prystowsky. "Debate? There is no debate," the professor said angrily. "The issue they're trying to make debatable is the homicidal gassing of the Jews as the byproduct of the 'final solution,' but there is no debate. Jews were gassed, purposely, in a program of extermination." 

Said Walther: "His eight-month-long attack on the ADL had nothing whatsoever to do with the work of the Board of Trustees or the community college district. "He is clever. He makes outrageous statements that lead people to inevitable conclusions, then steps back just in time to avoid being held accountable for his words." 

Frogue said he chose the public life because certain questions need to be asked, and, he vowed, he'll continue to ask them, no matter who it offends. 

"I don't go seeking controversy," he said, "but I'm sure not afraid of it either. People criticize me for asking too many questions at board meetings. Well, if the Orange County Board of Supervisors had asked a few more questions, maybe we wouldn't have been bankrupt. They just sit there, like potted plants. Steve Frogue is no potted plant. Steve Frogue is a leader and a doer, and my constituents are better off for having him."

 

11/29/96 

OC Weekly, Letters, 

SAVE THE DEMOCRATS

 After reading R. Scott Moxley's "Adventures in advertising" (Nov. 15) about the anti-gay mailer at Saddleback College, I have only this response: With Democrats like Dorothy Fortune [who benefited from the mailer], who needs Republicans? 

--Dianne Farrell Dana Point 


12/3/96 Letter to CTA's Dianne Fernandes-Lisi from Michael R. Robinson, Chairperson of Elections Committee of the County of Orange (ECCO) 12/3/96 

Dear Ms. Fernandez-Lisi: 

It is with a deep sense of urgency and concern that I am writing you on behalf of the Elections Committee of the County of Orange ("ECCO"), Orange County's Lesbian and Gay non-partisan political action committee, regarding the use of two blatantly homophobic campaign mailers during the recent Saddleback Community College District elections. It has been brought to our attention that the two mailers: "Taxpayer Alert" and "Taxpayer Alert-Same Sex Marriage," used blatantly homophobic appeals in order to undermine the four candidates who were not endorsed by the O.C. Citizens for Quality Education. The mailers are all the more outrageous considering two of the candidates [Davis and Fortune] endorsed by the above PAC returned questionnaires and actively solicited ECCO's endorsement and financial support. Therefore, although it is our understanding that CTA was not aware of the content of the mailer until after its publication, we are appealing to your leadership for assistance in resolving this issue. Specifically, we are requesting that CTA's long standing opposition to discrimination based upon sexual orientation be publicly reiterated and that your organization issue a statement to your members, condemning the use of homophobia as a campaign tactic. Finally, allow me to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to you and your organization to meet with our political affairs committee, so that we might further the cause of tolerance and understanding that has been the backbone of organizations such as yours for many years. It would seem that with the recent climate of racism, sexism, homophobia, and the all-out assault on the economic issues of working people, we certainly will find many areas of common concern in our struggle for dignity in our lives. Once again, on behalf of ECCO, I thank you in advance for your consideration of this urgent matter. We will anxiously await you response. 

In Solidarity: 

Michael R. Robinson, 

Chairperson 

 cc: Kathy Sprowles, President, CTA Jeff LeTourneau, Chair, Political Affairs Committee 

 

12/5/96 

Saddleback College Lariat Editorial: Faculty association campaign unethical 

Coming off a very successful campaign for seats on the Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees, the Faculty Association is facing a backlash not only from its opponents, but from within its own ranks. The campaign, which has been described as "win at all cost," saw the mailing of a controversial flier accusing the association's opponents of supporting domestic partner benefits and advocating same-sex marriages. 

Having achieved its goal, the flier is now being downplayed by the association. Members who do not openly criticize it are cautious in discussing their opinion of it. The association's leaders, who hold ultimate responsibility, are also quick to distance themselves from the flier. They will say little more than "a professional" was hired to handle the campaign, as if they are not accountable for the people they hire or what they pay them to do. 

Much criticism of the flier is due to the fact it plays off of anti-gay sentiment, but there is another issue here: The association lied. Its opponents are not "same-sex 'marriage' advocates," as the flier states. Nor did any of them say they want to use "tax dollars to pay for college classes to include content about gay and lesbian lifestyles," or to pay for "seminars and conferences to educate participants about the gay and lesbian lifestyle." The association invented an issue, invented its opponents' position on it and used its political clout (and faculty dues) to stuff the issue down voters' throats. 

This is dirty politics at its worst. The wishes of the voting public were not merely ignored, they were consciously twisted. There is no way of knowing what the election results would have been had the association not been so unprincipled and shameless. A great injustice has been done, not only to the three losing candidates who were opposed by the association, but to November's voters. 

 

12/5/96 

Saddleback College Lariat, Letters

Instructor feels betrayed by the Faculty Association 

Hear, hear Professor Roy Bauer of Irvine Valley College, "Instructor dislikes Association tactics," Nov. 21. He is right. The local Faculty Association has indeed been distorting and pandering. The local media calls their tactics "gay-baiting" (OC Weekly, Nov. 15), and "false and malicious"(OC Jewish Heritage, Nov. 8). However, we must all keep in mind that our local Faculty Association reflects neither the views nor the tactics of the NEA, the CTA and certainly not the majority of faculty at Saddleback College and IVC. Their gay-baiting, their false and malicious ads, their refusal to represent the majority of faculty members are the reasons their dues-paying members have left the FA in droves. At IVC, only about 23 members remain out of a faculty of nearly 100. At Saddleback, about 160 remain out of a faculty of over 200, and the number is dropping fast. 31 Of those who continue to belong to the union, many feel betrayed by the FA. What a shame. We should all be working together. Instead, a small group of "leaders" seems to want to pander to holocaust deniers and gay-baiters. Why? 

 Ron Albright 

 

12/5/96 

Saddleback College Lariat 

Faculty association divided: Election mailer draws charges of gay-baiting

By MARYANNE WARDLAW EDITOR IN CHIEF 

Political fallout continues from a heated campaign in November long after voters filled four board of trustee seats for the Saddleback Community College District. 

Of the four board members beginning their terms this month, three were backed by the district Faculty Association. Their major opposition this year was a political action committee called Partners in Education (PIE), whose candidate won the seat in Area 1.

Controversy marked the extensive campaign, the most divisive issue being a mailer which critics here called "gay-baiting." The pamphlet, which was funded by the association and mailed to many homes in the district, claimed PIE candidates supported health benefits for the partners of district employees who are part of same-sex marriages.

The cover of the bright red flier reads: "Don't allow your tax dollars to pay for same-sex 'marriage' domestic benefits at your Saddleback Community College District." The flier also claims the four PIE candidates want college classes to contain information about gay and lesbian lifestyles, and that they had a domestic partner's benefits plan which would cost $9,000 a year per partner. 

PIE candidates objected to the flier, claiming they were not running on that issue and that they did not have a plank. David Lang, a PIE candidate who was elected in Area 1, said neither he nor the other three PIE candidates ran using domestic partners' benefits as an issue. However, he said the four candidates were asked in an open forum once whether they would be in favor of domestic partner benefits, and they said they would be. 

"We should have elaborated," Lang said, explaining that because of shared governance trustees don't have the power to implement such a program. 

The flier's claim that PIE had a plan for gay and lesbian lifestyle seminars and college classes was invented, he said. 

Carol Bander, a German instructor and former secretary for the association, resigned her position after the flier was sent out. She said she felt the association should not have used some people's fear of the gay lifestyle to win the election. 

Sherry Miller-White, president of the association, declined to be interviewed for this story. She said in a written statement that the association turned over the election campaign to a professional, who came up with the flier. Regarding the use of the benefits issue, Miller-White wrote: "The professional said that many Democratic and Republican races across the nation were debating it and that the public should not be kept in the dark about the full P.I.E. agenda, that the Saddleback Community College District voters should be given the opportunity to decide." 

Lee Haggerty, a social and behavioral sciences instructor and member of the association, said the campaign material borders on being a hate flier and that its distribution was not a decision association members made unilaterally. 

"There is a small elite group making decisions without input from faculty members," he said. "The union hired a consultant who told the elite group they wouldn't win without 'dirty tricks,' if I can use that term. It was put to us: 'Do you want to win, or do you want to lose?'" 

Other faculty members also objected to the mailer's content. "Some of the actions during the campaign were disgusting, in specific the pamphlet that was mailed out," said Jeanne Mazique-Craig, chair of cross-cultural studies. "Part of that was homophobic, and that was playing to the lowest factor in our society." 

Mazique-Craig, who belonged to the association until three years ago, said she withdrew her membership because she didn't feel her voice was being heard. Michael Channing, an English instructor and treasurer for taxpayers for Responsible Education, which helped fund the flier, said he was unaware of the mailer's content before distribution, and that he personally would not have come up with something like that. He said he feels the association is representing its members very well. "The track record is that the working conditions and compensation schedule are very good, and those have been achieved by the association in the past six years," he said, adding that a majority of members feel the same way. 

 

12/9/96 

SADDLEBACK COLLEGE ACADEMIC SENATE REPORT TO THE BOARD

We want to pull together rather than to pull apart. Last year, the senates, classified staffs, and administrations of the two colleges executed a change in direction: we worked together to plan, research, draft and implement fresh ways to do business, to improve business, to open processes. The colleges have maintained their collegial relationship. We crafted DRAC and FRAC committees, designed and worked through a COPS method of distributing money and devised methods of debt reduction--a necessity since the District has incurred some $30,000,000.00 plus in debt. That money--$30,000,000.00--is owed, independent of our operating costs. For three years--largely ignoring warnings regarding the financial stability of our college district--we have relied on deficit spending; and--expecting additional warnings regarding its financial stability-this district projects a pattern of deficit spending for the next three years. Should those projections come to fruition, this district will have on its books 6 years of operating in the red. Can we imagine any of our families doing that? Can we imagine the voting public expecting that of a public institution and public officials in whom they have placed fiduciary responsibility? CAN WE IMAGINE SUCH A SCENARIO? WILL THE PUBLIC TOLERATE SUCH A SCENARIO? As revenues streams dry up, our district officers push for bigger projects: a golf driving range, a swap meet, a CSU extension, and, now, possible off-campus housing for the District offices, a Tustin Center, an El Toro Center, a third Center/Campus site somewhere to the south of us, and a baseball stadium. Our golf driving range has hooked and sliced us. Our child care center--supposed to be self-supporting--is now our dependent. What will the baseball stadium bring? And from where in left field? A thirty-year commitment? A secure revenue stream? So, we need to put our credit cards away. We are on apportionment funding now. We rely on state moneys now. We must act now: let's pull ourselves together before we're pulled apart. 

 

12/9/96 

Flier(?) evidently authored by Michael G. Runyan of the Faculty Association 

HARRIET [sic] WALTHER HAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF A WEAKNESS IN THE LOCAL MEDIA: a person in a titled position, presenting some reporters with some gamey material and a list of sources primed to lie, can make running dogs of the press. In other words, some people in the media can be controlled simply by making their jobs easier. 

WHY WOULD HARRIET [sic] WALTHER WISH TO DO THIS? Apart from the possibility of grave weaknesses in character and psychology, there are two proximate causes. 1) In 1993 the new board rejected Harriet's candidacy for Board president. They had seen her operate as president when she as vice president substituted at length for Iris Swanson. They did not like what they saw and registered that dislike with their votes. 2) Ms. Walther blames some other trustees for the written reprimand slapped on her by the State FPPC. Either she had to blame other people or blame herself. 

MS. WALTHER HAS ALSO TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF A WEAKNESS WITHIN DISTRICT STAFF. Within the staff there are people who rely on patronage. These are people with weak programs and/or unpopular agenda; and/or they are people who constitutionally appeal to authority to get what they want. Harriet Walther has sniffed these people out like a hound sniffing out a cadaver. 

THE CURE: the realization by media and staff that they are being used as running dogs and ultimately doing the greatest harm to themselves. 

 --(Signed) Michael G. Runyan [of the Faculty Union]

 

12/12?/96 

The Faculty Association December Newsletter

The Election One Last time 

Walther said the main issue dividing Partners in Education and the Association is faculty salaries. She said the Association is more interested in protecting faculty salaries than in managing the budget responsibly. (Lariat 10-2-96) 

It is the primary responsibility of the Faculty Association to protect the contract. Quality education is enhanced by a congenial work environment. The Faculty Association was forced to compete in the past campaign because life as we know it was under threat. We fail to understand why a small group of faculty chose to support Walther's attempt to destroy our district. A few faculty agreed with Walther that faculty salaries are too high and took it upon themselves to destroy conditions for the rest of us. It would have been more honorable for these few faculty to simply talk the rest of the faculty out of voting for cost-of-living increases, or to set an example by refusing to take their own cost-of-living adjustments. And why did they not object to Walther's enormous waste of district money? 

Instead they forced us to spend a lot of Faculty Association money needlessly. As to the ideological issues which some faculty see as important, the Faculty Association thoroughly checked-out Walther's charge of anti-Semitism. Walther has practiced manipulating newspaper reporters for 20 years and her victims are numerous. The board member who is a current victim has had the full support of his fellow high school faculty and administrators at his place of employment for the past 30 years. His colleagues say that he was falsely accused. Does Walther indict this entire school district? 

As to the domestic partnership issues, it was placed in the political forum by Walther's partners in education (P.I.E.) group. Because Walther has so much experience in controlling newspaper reports and because Walther was spreading false information throughout the district, the Faculty Association, in desperation, turned the campaign over to a professional firm. All the information and literature of the P.I.E. group was turned over to the professionals who developed the campaign. As to the domestic partners issue in question, the professionals said that many Democratic and Republican races across the nation were debating it and that the public should not be kept in the dark about the full P.I.E. agenda, that the Saddleback Community College District Voters should be given the opportunity to decide. 

Apparently the voters of the district and Assemblyman Bill Morrow, who was willing to place his picture in the flier, appreciated the public airing. The domestic partners benefits activists had previously taken their case to the newspapers which had provoked much opposition in the community. The Board had received many calls in opposition from the community. 

Now that the election is over and the elected Board members are seated, we hope we as faculty can now return to our mission which is to educate our students. The Association is here to support you. 

—Message from the President [Miller White] 


Good News Bad News 

The good news is that the election is over. The very good news is that we won. The bad news is that we have a group of irresponsible malcontents trying to keep divisive elements alive. The voters have spoken. If the P.I.E. groups or the hand full of misinformed faculty want to call over 123,000 voters in the Saddleback Community College District stupid, liars, ignorant, irrelevant or ill -informed they can do so, but the outcome remains the same. It is because the voters were informed on issues that the turn out was so favorable for the candidates that the Faculty Association supported. It's like crying over spilled milk. Criticizing the election or the outcome of the election can only further divide, alienate and confuse the faculty. This a time for healing and coming together. What responsible faculty member or supporter of the Saddleback Community College District would purposely divide the faculty and stir up trouble on both campuses and in the district? What responsible faculty member would contrive to have negative articles about the faculty and board members printed in newspapers and magazines? What good does it do? It does nothing good. It makes the district look bad and the faculty (with one of the best contracts in the State) look rather irresponsible. We are about to begin new negotiations. We need to concentrate on getting the best retirement package possible. We need to concentrate on working on the best salary adjustment possible for the benefit of the district as well as the faculty. We are also trying to concentrate on making the medicare option available to interested faculty members. We need to concentrate on making these opportunities the best possible for everyone concerned. If you are a faculty member that means you. Are you concerned about your future? If you don't like your salary and you think that it is too high, or that you make too much money, give it back. The Faculty Association will make a contribution in your name to a scholarship fund, a special program or division. If you have something positive to say or even an innovative idea/suggestion for negotiation or for the benefit of the faculty, let us hear from you. Call any officer or your division representative. Let's move forward. Let us hear from you. 

 --Sherry Miller White, President 


 Who Are the Partners in Education (P.I.E.)? 

The election need not have occurred. The faculty's money need not have been spent. The small coalition of faculty Walther managed to put together were willing to destroy our contract and life as we know it for all of us in order to pursue their own narrow agendas.

The group continues to attack the Faculty Association. Who are they? Walther's Partners in Education activists are the following: 

1. The ruling clique at Irvine Valley College 

2) The Saddleback Senate leadership and a few Saddleback administrators who say that faculty salaries are too high. 

3) Those who want domestic partner benefits and who brought in outside activists. 

4) Those who believed Walther's anti-Semitism charges in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

5) One faculty member with a personal grudge against the chancellor. (Walther had promised to remove the Chancellor because he is supportive of faculty). 

Those listed above are directly responsible for forcing the Faculty Association to go to battle to protect the contract. They are directly responsible for the chaos and for the expenditures of money. 

It's Over! Shouldn't we be thankful? Saddleback is known throughout the State for having excellent working conditions. Many faculty have worked for years helping to establish this positive work environment. We have an honorable, human, outstanding Chancellor and pro-faculty, hard-working, and approachable Board of Trustees majority. Let us hope that they understand that the majority of faculty are grateful. Association Critics Should Start Pitching for us 

A recent letter circulated for faculty signatures at IVC and Saddleback alleges a "crisis situation in our District" precipitated by unethical rogues in the Faculty Association. The anonymous author concludes the 4-page harangue against the Association by urging CCA President Kathy Sproles to provide copies of the bylaws and "facilitate our enrollment as dues-paying members."

In the November 25 Los Angeles Times, an IVC faculty member called the Association "shameless and corrupt." Another has likened it to "an unprincipled and loathsome bully" in the November 21 Lariat. 

As IVC's membership and grievance chair, I would like to address some of my non-member colleagues who may sincerely believe these charges, even though I do not: stop whining and start participating! Month after month and year after year, Lee Walker and I have "facilitated your enrollment as dues-paying members," but you've refused to join, apparently preferring to leave me nasty voice mail messages when displeased with the Association. I've reminded you of union meetings, luncheons, surveys, and elections, but you chose not to participate. 

As for the bylaws, I've regularly urged you and your school chair to elect one to four voting representatives the bylaws allow and send them to the monthly rep council meeting, but I am usually the only one there from IVC. Taking potshots at the Association from the sidelines accomplishes no more than moving to Canada because you're displeased with the U.S. Congress. "Potential members" cannot vote. 

Again, I don't consider any of our officers shameless, corrupt, unethical rogues, or bullies. They've all worked tirelessly and unselfishly to protect and advance your interests as a faculty member-handling grievances (including those of non-members), protecting sabbatical leaves, improving health and retirement benefits, and insuring that your rights are respected—so that you don't have to worry about these matters and can concentrate on doing your job. 

As for bullies, I suggest faculty newcomers consult with those present during the era of Larry Stevens, a chancellor so dedicated to waging daily war against the faculty that teaching became nearly impossible. The Association worked in the recent election to prevent a recurrence of this dark period. 

If instead of simply accepting the venomous statements of its antagonists, you make the effort to become acquainted with the Association first hand. [sic] I think you will agree with me. In any case, I invite you to become a member and work to improve your Faculty Association. 

 —Ray Chandos 


Role of the Faculty Association 

NOTE: The following research is provided by Sherry Miller White 

We won the election, that's the good news. Now, we need to come together to heal the division.

There are a number of issues that we (the S.C.C.D.F.A. and the rest of the faculty) need to deal with before we can move on. What were the issues at hand? 

1. There was a board of trustees election. With few exceptions, we had a wonderful board. I do not mean that it was a board that did everything the way we wanted them to or that they voted the way that we wanted them to vote on all issues. That is a situation that would cripple the Saddleback District and thus the faculty. It would mean that anyone could come along and influence board members or buy votes. 

It is the Faculty Association's job to protect the rights of the faculty. We see a major part of our job as weeding out board members who have agendas for personal gain and or vendettas. The only concern of any board member should be to further the growth and development of the Saddleback District. We focused on supporting candidates with this philosophy and these were the individuals that we selected to support in the recent election. The public agreed with us and three of our four candidates won. We now have what we need, a board composed primarily of independent, intelligent, caring, concerned, cooperative, approachable and open-minded people. The only thing that the Faculty Association has ever asked of any candidate that we support is to maintain open dialogue and listen to the expressed concerns of the faculty association, the only legal and authorized representative of the faculty. 

2. What does the faculty association do? What is the responsibility of the faculty association? The Faculty Association is responsible for protecting the rights of the faculty as a whole and as individuals. It is our responsibility to negotiate the best working conditions possible. We represent all faculty members on any legitimate grievance. We also protect the benefits that faculty members currently enjoy. Finally, last but not least, it is also our responsibility to negotiate the best and most responsible (for the district as well as the faculty) salary schedule possible. It is our job to fight to the death to protect the contract. 

To some degree, we have done this. We are known all over the state for our excellent contract. During the election, we were all in a fight for our existence as we know it. With all of this at risk, it became my responsibility as president to do the best I could prevent this from happening. 

We would not have had to run a campaign at all had it not been for Harriet [sic] Walther. 

Fact: The opposition candidates were selected, organized, sponsored and supported by Harriet Walther and a small group of administrator faculty from both campuses. The Walther campaign platform was based on: 

  • Performance based pay 
  • Faculty salaries too high 
  • Less flexible schedules (five day work week) 

Who would you want to decide whether or not you get next step increase? Your enemies? Your friends? Your Dean? Do you deserve your next step increase? Do you want that right taken away from you? Are our faculty salaries too high? 

No, not at all. They are in line with the rest of the state. 

Change in Basic Aid Status Impacts 1995-1996 Figures 

Figures do not lie. 1995-96 is the only year that Saddleback's certificated salary category is a higher percentage of the budget than North Orange County or Long Beach City College District. This increase in percentage is due to the change in our basic aid status, a lower ending balance due to the bankruptcy and other changes that the other districts did not have to contend with. This situation will correct itself within two years or less (even with additional salary increases) and we will once again enjoy large ending balances. 

If you would like to see more details of a budget comparison of the three districts cited, ask your division representative. Please do not keep or monopolize the information as several people may want to see it. 

Some faculty and administrators like Peter Morrison have been heard to say that salaries are too high and we make too much money here at Saddleback. To everyone who shares that philosophy (even if you are President of a college), there's a simple solution, give the money back. Put your money where your mouth is. We (the faculty association) will give the money to scholarships, grants, programs and divisions on either campus, in your name. Let the rest of us who work hard for our money enjoy and be proud of our salaries. 

Finally, if you are a faculty member and you want your schedule so that you must come to campus five days a week, I am sure that it can be arranged, if you request it. 

The goal of the faculty association is to protect the contract for all of us. The unfortunate recent campaign war was necessitated solely by those opposing or threatening our contract. Even though the job as President of the faculty association is extremely difficult and requires a lot of self sacrifice, knowing that our immediate future is secure makes it all worth while. 

Until next time, 

Your President, 

—Sherry Miller-White 



 12/12?/96 

Insert of FA Newsletter: FACULTY ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION 12/96 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL DEC. 9,1996 

The Senate leadership, without a Senate or Faculty vote, actively opposed the Faculty Association candidates in the recent election. The Faculty Association hereby requests that in the future this not be done because it caused an enormous waste of Faculty Association money. 


SEE "FROGUE, EARLY SKIRMISHES, PART II" HERE

No comments:

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...