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.
[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
 |
| Jody Hoy and friend |
1995
1/31/95
Letter to Steven Frogue from Joyce Greenspan, Regional Director, ADL
Dear Mr. Frogue:
—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
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 |
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
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
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
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."
"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
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
Bauer is a philosophy instructor and the Humanities Department Chair
 |
| Faculty Union VP, Sharon MacMillan |
1996 7/16/96
STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER
FORTUNE
SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TRUSTEE AREA 3 DOROTHY FORTUNE AGE 56 OCCUPATION: RETIRED COLLEGE ENGLISH AND HISTORY TEACHER
(Signed by Dorothy Fortune, July 16, 1996)
10/96
Notorious "suppressed evidence" FA flier
Flier distributed by Faculty Association to faculty (mailboxes), 10/96 [GRAPHIC] (Attacks Harriett Walther; fails to cite portion of CFPPC document that essentially exonerates her)
10/6/96 Frogue defends himself against charges, at FA
(A letter presented at a special FA meeting arranged to allay concerns of some union members; see C. Bander.)
— Steven J. Frogue
10-6-96
Union Newsletter, October, ’96
Election Update Trustee [Walther] Launches an Attack on Faculty Salaries and Academic Freedom
WANTS TO CUT FACULTY SALARIES
Statements by Walther's hand-picked candidates indicate that her group wants to cut faculty salaries and to instigate a different faculty evaluation system which CTA has declared to be a violation of the contract and a threat to academic freedom. Walther is not seeking to improve the quality of education. She is seeking to take SCCD down with her in her blaze of destructive behavior which has been so widely noticed during the past few years. For some time Walther has expressed hatred, not only for Saddleback faculty but also for the other board members who are not under her control, i.e. Trustees Lorch, Williams, Frogue, and Milchiker. Walther lost her board dominance with the ouster of her comrades on the Chancellor Larry Stevens era board and she has never adjusted to the loss. She wants to reinstate a Stevens' era model of control over the faculty. Unfortunately, the ruling group at IVC supports her as well as a handful of Saddleback faculty who must have hope of career advancement under a new regime. Otherwise, why would they support an attack on the income of faculty families and on academic freedom?
SADDLEBACK COLLEGE LEADER
 |
| Walther |
THREAT OF LOWERED MORALE IS REAL
Many faculty members remember the lowered morale of the Stevens' era and its attendant effect on the classroom. We need to ensure that it does not happened [sic] again. The threat is very real. The Faculty Association would not have been running a campaign this election year except for the fact that Walther's group has forced it to. The Faculty Association is running a lean campaign because of the amount of money required in previous elections.
CONTRIBUTIONS NEEDED
Please donate to the election fund. Send contributions to Taxpayers for Responsible Education in care of your division representative. At the very least, please tell your family and friends to vote against Walther's P.I.E. group candidates: Susanne Moraes, Dianne Brooks, and David Lang. Walther has been soliciting campaign funds through faculty mail boxes. Please do not be fooled by the P.I.E. group's flyers. The ultimate target is your family's income. Please get out the vote for CTA candidates, Don Davis, Dorothy Fortune, Steven Frogue, and John Williams.
FACULTY ASSOCIATION ENDORSEMENTS
—Sherry Miller White
10?/96 The notorious "same-sex" flier [10/96]
Paid for by the faculty union Sent to south county Republicans/very successful (See May "chronology" for further evidence of homophobia among faculty leadership)
10/17/96
Irvine Valley College Voice Forum set for Friday to meet district trustee candidates
[The IVC VOICE]
By Angeline Fowler Staff Writer
Voting season is upon us and you're being asked to decide on propositions, city councilmen and of course who you believe should run the country.
Well just as you thought you could take it no more, there's one more item you need to vote for and the results of this decision will directly affect your as an Irvine Valley College student in many more ways than the results of the presidential election. At the Nov. 5 election you will be asked to cast your vote for four new members of the Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees. To assist you with this additional pressure, the IVC Academic Senate and ASIVC are jointly sponsoring a Candidates Forum which will allow students and community members to hear the candidates share their views on certain issues. The Forum will be held at IVC on Oct. 18 from 7 - 9 p.m. in b304.
Three of the Trustees, Teddi Lorch, Joan Hueter, and Marcia Milchiker are not up for re-election this year, but the remaining four seats have drawn nine candidates. In June, the boundaries of each trustees district were redrawn in order to make sure each area had an equal percentage of voters. As a result, Trustee Harriet Walther's area was eliminated and a new area was drawn for Irvine.
There are three candidates from Irvine running against [sic] for the new position, past IVC foundation president, David B. Lang, business owner Don Davis and navy officer, Mark Shelly. This [sic] the first year the City of Irvine will have their own representative on the Board of Trustees.
In the other three areas, each incumbent board position is being opposed by another candidate. Trustee Steven Frogue, Lake Forest area, is being opposed by Dianne Brooks. Suzanne Moraes is challenging Trustee John Williams for the Mission Viejo area and Trustee Rhodes is being challenged by Dorothy Fortune for the Laguna Beach area.
The trustees have tremendous power over your education and your life as a college student. All proposals and decisions to [be] implemented at the college have to be first approved by the Board of Trustees. They approve the budget, expenditure of money, hiring of new staff, new policies. Nothing happens in this district without first being approved by trustees. The trustees represent the students, the faculty and the community in important decisions and you now have the opportunity to decide for yourself who you wish to be making those decisions on behalf of you.
This forum will give each of the nine candidates the opportunity to make brief opening and closing remarks as well as respond to questions. The academic senate are providing students and community members with the opportunity to submit questions and a total of six to eight will be chosen. Questions must be submitted before 4 p.m. Thursday, to the Academic Senate office or may be left in the ballot box adjacent to the switchboard in the A-100 building.
[NOTE: Williams and Frogue did not attend the forum; further, they (or at least Williams) seemed to believe that the forum was illegal. (Perhaps they thought that the organizers of the event favored opposing candidates. In fact, there is no evidence for this.) Eventually, an attorney for the district explained that the forum was in no sense illegal. Nevertheless, Williams did not attend.]
 |
| Paid for by the union's leadership |
10/17/96 Letter from Spencer Covert, attorney for district, to Kathleen Hodge (re the legality of the IVC "Candidates' Forum") 10/1/96
Dear Ms. Hodge
 |
| Hodge |
Very truly yours,
Spencer E. Covert [attorney for the district]
10/24/96
 |
| The FA's political flack |
[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
"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
"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
"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.
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
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.
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 |
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
 |
| Stan Brin of OCJH |
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
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
—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
—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
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
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
Ron Albright
12/5/96
Saddleback College Lariat
Faculty association divided: Election mailer draws charges of gay-baiting
By MARYANNE WARDLAW EDITOR IN CHIEF
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
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
—Message from the President [Miller White]
Good News Bad News
--Sherry Miller White, President
Who Are the Partners in Education (P.I.E.)?
—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:
Post a Comment