THE SAYINGS OF CHAIRMAN FROGUE (1997?)

Prepared by R. J. Bauer for the Recall Frogue Committee

STEVE FROGUE, SEEKER OF “TRUTH”:

“Was it 6 million who died?” Frogue asked, saying he wonders “whether it’s the number of people who were actually killed, or the number of people who actually died, or the number of people who were actually put in the gas chambers.”

--From the Register, 4/4/95

“...there are too many questions about the Holocaust for it to be judged a certainty in all aspects.”

--Frogue quoted in the IVC student newspaper the Voice, 4/20/95

“There’s a group, right here in Orange County, called the Institute for Historical Review...they have raised questions about [the occurrence of the Holcaust]. 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?”

--Frogue, quoted in the IVC Voice, 3/23/95 (The Institute for Historical Review, founded in the early ‘80s by notorious anti-Semite and racist Willis Carto, is the foremost Holocaust denial organization in the U.S.)

“...a bit of a nightmare, and all for telling the truth.”

--Frogue describing the toll he had taken over the controversy over the April, 1995, OC Register article. (Voice, 4/20/95)

PUBLIC ENEMY #1: THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE

An Irvine Valley College class on the Holocaust has been called into question by a college district trustee due to the professor’s involvement in a Holocaust project...Trustee Steven Frogue has publicly questioned the role of the ADL in Professor Richard Prystowsky’s class and the Holocaust Oral History Project, saying he is “distressed” that Prystowsky “is a Holocaust scholar and heavily involved in the Anti-Defamation League of Orange County’s Holocaust Project”....

Frogue spoke out against the ADL at the Jan. 23, 1995 meeting of the Board of Trustees, alleging that the ADL has conducted a “massive espionage apparatus against thousands of law abiding American citizens.”

According to Frogue, the conspiracy is widespread. The ADL has been “violating the rights of Americans, working in conjunction illegally with various police departments and police agencies, federal, state, and local.”

--From an article in IVC’s Voice, February 23, 1995. In fact, Prystowsky has never been a member of the ADL, and the ADL had no role in his course. Frogue’s charges against the ADL have not been substantiated.

“[The ADL is a] group of spies that actively keeps files on people...people like me.”

--Frogue, quoted in the LA Times, 11/25/96

“I believe Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the ADL...That’s right...I believe the ADL was behind [the JFK assassination].”

--Frogue, quoted in the LA Times, 11/25/96.

STEVE FROGUE, PROTECTOR OF FREEDOM:

“[The ADL] keep[s] files on over 10,000 individuals in this state, 950 organizations...I consider the group a threat to academic freedom and a danger to civil liberties in this country.”

--Frogue, quoted in the IVC Voice, 3/23/95

“Freedom of speech does not entail license.”

--Frogue, responding to a concern, expressed by Tamara Carnine, that those who criticize or question IVC president Raghu Mathur seem to risk disciplinary action from him; at a board meeting, 5/19/97

LIARS, LIARS EVERYWHERE!

“An April 4, 1994, article in the ‘Orange County Register’ quoted four students saying things that I had supposedly said in my classes two years before. The quotes were absolutely and totally false. I never could or never would have said such cruel, vicious and untruthful things...The manner in which the reporter tried to put words into my mouth, and into the mouths of three colleagues leave little doubt in my mind as to how he elicited such comments from these young women.”

--Frogue, from a letter, dated 10/6/96, distributed by the faculty union (which supports him).

“We have the same type of problem here that we've had over the last three years...And we've seen it in this last week here, where lies get printed in the newspapers...It's called ‘blow back.’ It's the oldest game in the book. You plant something in the newspaper that's false--I've suffered this type of stuff personally from people in this very room: repeating lies. The lies, just by getting printed get--’Well, it was printed; it therefore must be the truth’...They spin this stuff--people (can be) inventive, conscientious, and creative liars and the truth seems to be whatever lies they think they can get away with. And it's time that maybe a little bit of this stuff stops.”

--Frogue, remarking on the district’s Academic Senates during the May 19, 1997, board meeting.

“The Register reporter was inaccurate in everything he wrote, from my hometown to the spelling of students’ names.”

--Frogue, quoted in the IVC Voice, 4/20/95

“I NEVER SAID IT,” HE SAID

During the August 18 board meeting, Joyce Greenspan of the ADL revealed the unsavory nature of the guest speakers--especially Mr. Michael Collins Piper, who is on the staff of an anti-Semitic newspaper--whom Mr. Frogue was about to propose for his forum on the JFK assassination. She also repeated a quote from a November ‘96 Times piece in which Frogue said that the ADL was behind the Kennedy assassination.

Frogue then responded as follows:

FROGUE: Michael Collins Piper--I met him in Washington, D.C., a year ago. He has written a book, Final Judgment, which blames certain elements of the CIA associated through James...Engleton, head of counter-intelligence, and certain elements of organized crime for the assasssination.
Regarding the quote in the Los Angeles Times, November 25th: like about everything else in that article, it’s untrue. I never said it, it’s ridiculous and--how they can quote me as saying something like that--I never said it. It’s ridiculous, and I never said it. So much for that.

ROY BAUER, interrupting: (So) all the papers are liars. All the papers. The Register, the LA Times, the Irvine World News--they’re all liars. Is there a conspiracy against you? Is that what’s going on?

FROGUE: No...we’re getting away from this. What we have...

BAUER: Are you still a fan of the Institute for Historical Review?

FROGUE: Mr...? You’re out of order, please.

“Any person that has any concern about the April 4, ‘Register’ article...need only realize that the vile statements attributed to me are entirely false, and are the offshoot of questions I have raised about the validity of faculty senate elections (or non-elections as is the case this year), and questions about any possible role of the Anti-Defamation League in a Holocaust course at Irvine Valley College. In both cases I found a group of most industrious and inventive liars involved in a propaganda campaign that even a child could figure out. Not much different than certain quarters of our own school district. Chasing the lies is a bit time consuming, but - hey - someone’s got to do it.”

--From a memo from Frogue to some of his High School colleagues, May 2, 1995

“...certain people know that they’re not going to be able to get away with telling lies and falsehoods and some of those people, I honestly think, if they could get by with telling the truth, they’d tell a lie just to keep in practice.”

--Frogue remarking on members of the IVC Academic Senate, March, 1995. (The IVC Voice, 3/23/95)

THE VOICE: How did you feel when Trustee Walther used the term “holocaust denier,” maybe not in direct reference to you, but in a tangential reference?

FROGUE: Well again that’s the general idea of the smear--don’t answer the question, smear people and raise this business of--I never in my life said anything that could remotely be considered denying the holocaust. This is obscene, this is an obscenity to say that--and what can I say? It’s 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.

--From the IVC Voice, 3/23/95

TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA “LIARS”:

“He decided that the Holocaust was made up...He basically said that the Jews made it up to make people feel sorry for them, because he decided that it was impossible for so many people to have been killed in such a short amount of time...He said that it was more like 60 people that got killed, rather than 6 million...I would raise my hand and tell him, ‘That’s wrong,’ and he would just really get mad at me and send me out of the class.”

--Emily Hoffman, one of Frogue’s students, quoted in the 1995 Register piece

“He said [the Holocaust] never happened.”

--Leah Killen, one of Frogue’s students, quoted in the Register piece

“He said some really racist things that really really hurt a lot of his Asian students...There was this one time, I forget what he was talking about, but he called us ‘yellow people’...He always characterized ethnicity by color, and it really bothered me. Maybe he was trying to be funny, but it didn’t work.”

--Wendy Hayashi, one of Frogue’s students, quoted in the Register piece)

“Five percent of all Jewish people are bad, but 95 percent are just as good as the rest of us.”

--From student Stacey Marcus’ notes of one of Frogue’s lectures. (From the 1995 Register piece).

"He said you can always tell a Jew by their nose and that they are always rude," Danielle Brown, 19, said. "I couldn't believe he was a teacher. When I got to Irvine Valley and saw that he was the board president, I was disgusted."

--From the OC Register, 9/16/97

"He also said the Holocaust did not exist," [Danielle] Brown told the board...Brown, who attends the Mormon church, also told the board that Frogue made derogatory comments about Mormons as well.

--From the LA Times, 9/16/97

Pam Bustamante, 24, who works as a World Wide Web designer, told The Times on Tuesday that she was a student of Frogue's in 1989, before graduating from Foothill High in 1990. Bustamante, who is Jewish, said she complained to school authorities when Frogue refused to mention the Holocaust during a lengthy discussion of World War II.

"I remember him going into great detail about Japanese internment camps, but when I asked him to discuss the Holocaust, he refused, which upset me a great deal,” Bustamante said. "I lost 48 relatives in the Holocaust, so I found his attitude extremely disturbing."

--From the LA Times, 9/17/97

[Former student Danielle] Brown also said that statements by Frogue about the Mormon religion had gotten so derogatory, she walked out of his class. She said Frogue described the Jewish and Mormon religions as “cults inspired by the devil."

--From the Irvine World News, 9/18/97

STEVEN FROGUE, IRONIST:

“The classrooms of the community college district and all public schools are not to be used as pulpits for pushing one particular idea or another.”

--Frogue, quoted in the IVC Voice, 3/23/95. In early 1995, Frogue used up much board time, over several meetings, to attack the ADL, prompting the Irvine World News to ask, What does all this “have to do with running the Saddleback Community College District?”

“We live in a nation planted thick with laws and by-laws. They are there for a reason. One needn’t look far in Irvine to see that that fine community has had its reputation besmirched by the Lincoln Savings and Loan Scandal...How did these tragedies occur? Because people didn’t follow the rules, and those responsible for overseeing them were asleep at the switch. This is not going to happen in this district. There have been too many reports and too many observations of shady activities up to and inculding [sic] attempts to manipulate the chancellor search process and even the trustee elections in this district...A small clique has become a law unto themselves, bending the rules when necessary to perpetuate their own power, to the detriment of the campus as a whole.”

--From Frogue’s written report to the Board of Trustees on June 6, 1994. (Orange County Superior Court Judge William McDonald recently ruled that Frogue and other members of the board majority (Williams, Fortune, and Lorch) violated five sections of the California Open Meeting Law. Indeed, it seems clear that the board majority has often violated that law. Further, recently, as the search for the IVC president approached, these same four Trustees pressured Chancellor Lombardi to impose a

process that clearly violated the district’s hiring procedures, a fact later acknowledged by Lombardi.

(Frogue’s disciple, Raghu Mathur, has displayed a similarly strong propensity to violate rules.)

STEVE FROGUE, RHETORICIAN:

“An intellectual drive-by shooting.”

--Frogue’s description of two IVC Academic Senate resolutions that condemned his conduct; Februrary, 1995.

“An intellectual spur posse.”

--Frogue’s description of the IVC Academic Senate, February, 1995. He was referring, of course, to the gang of high school boys who kept a tally of their sexual conquests.

“Thought police.”

--Frogue’s characterization of the ADL and its supporters, February, 1995.

“The Spanish Inquisition carried out by fifth graders.”

--Frogue, characterizing the work of an IVC Academic Senate Fact Finding Committee that was investigating Frogue’s reprimand of the IVC Senate President; 4/94.

“I used 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, explaining his use of racial terms in his high school classroom. (The IVC Voice, 4/20/95)

THE “RIGGED ELECTIONS” EPISODE, May 19:


The following exchange occurred at the May 19, 1997 board of trustees meeting. A few minutes earlier, the president of the IVC Academic Senate had informed the board of the results of a faculty-wide vote of “no confidence” in the trustees concerning their appointment of Raghu Mathur as Interim President one month earlier. 73% of the voting faculty, she said, voted “no confidence.” Not long after, Trustee Frogue spoke of “liars” in the press--and in the room. Then, when faculty union president Miller-White, a supporter of Mr. Frogue, suggested that the Academic Senates, which had been critical of the board, fall “under the auspices” of the board and should be investigated by them, Frogue offered this remark:

FROGUE: I've seen rigged elections. (Indecipherable) votes of no confidence--I've seen rigged elections in one of the colleges. I've seen it twice, personally, personally--with rigged elections. And so when...people talk about...votes of this or votes of that, I just think you have to take it with a grain of salt. Moving along...(Philosophy instructor Roy Bauer begins to speak over Trustee Frogue: "Are you saying that...")

BAUER: Excuse me. Are you saying that the [IVC faculty] referendum was rigged?

FROGUE: No.

(?): Then what are you saying?

FROGUE: I'm saying that there've been rigged elections in the past.

(?:) By whom?

FROGUE: The Academic Senate of Irvine Valley College [mixed voices. Frogue responds to something:] I just said it. There have been rigged elections...

BAUER: Was it [i.e., the vote of no confidence] rigged or not?
.....
JAN WYMA: We've been called liars here tonight; we may as well get it out in the open.

BAUER: (Addressing Frogue:) Who is the liar and what's the lie?

WYMA: (We're having) a public meeting and you [Frogue] call our faculty liars!

FROGUE: I said there have been rigged elections at Irvine Valley College. I've seen them. Twice. You want me to name names?...The evidence is in the record.
.....
(?): The record exonerated the Senate.

FROGUE: The record did not exonerate the Senate.

(?): I'd like (you) to name names.

FROGUE: The record...We can, if you'd like [mixed voices, indecipherable; reference is made by someone to Frogue's speaking of liars.] No, I didn't call anybody "liars." I said there were rigged elections.

BAUER: You, sir, are a coward.

FROGUE: No, I'm not.

DAMN, I’M GOOD!

THE VOICE: Why are you no longer teaching?

FROGUE: I don’t know. They reassigned me [to detention duty] without consulting me or my department chairman. It makes no sense for me to spend all day supervising students...

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...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.

--From an interview in the IVC Voice, 3/23/95

STEVE FROGUE: INSPIRATIONAL SPEAKER

“I turned, however, and there's an inscription on the wall that left me transfixed. And it said that every time a person stands up, and stands up to, that which is wrong, they start a small ripple, and if enough people stand up against what is wrong, they can truly cause a wave to form that will change the world. It was the most beautiful thing that I've ever seen. Very inspiring and something that we can all learn from and profit from.”

--Frogue, at the May 19, 1997, board meeting, describing his trip to Arlington national cemetary.

WEIRD STEVE:

“In that there be no taint of sex discrimmination [sic] or reverse sex discrimmination [sic] in the process of choosing our next department chair, I would like to point out that for over ten years...our department chair has always been a woman, either by election or administrative selection. In that we will have only one full-time and one part-time female teacher in our department next year..., it is perhaps time to consider an alternative to a female department chairperson.”

--From a memo from Frogue to members of his department (at Foothill High School) in which he solicits their “support for the position of Social Science Department Chair”; May 2, 1995

ANGRY STEVE SOILS HIS TROUSERS:

“I’ve had my name dragged through the mud. You want to look for a hate crime, you look in this room where people here have soiled my name.”

--Frogue, speaking to the Orange County Human Relations Commission concerning comments made about him and his JFK conspiracy course, 9/11/97. (Taken from the OC Register, 9/12/97.)

STEVE ON “BLACK HEROES”--AND AIDS:

“O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson, Magic Johnson, Arthur Ashe. Five black heroes who have fallen into disgrace.”

--A Froguian observation made during a board meeting. When asked about Arthur Ashe’s inclusion on the list, Frogue is said to have replied: “He died of AIDS.” Oh.

"Time for Pie" by Chunk Wheeler (Roy Bauer)

From Dissent, December, 1997.

     Last Monday, Julie, Steve, and I headed south, in separate cars, to attend the monthly Faculty Association [union] meeting (which is always held on the day of the regular board meeting). When I arrived at the usual meeting place, I found a note that said that, this time, we would gather at the San Juan Capistrano Marie Calendar’s. This gooey development made attending the meeting even less attractive than usual, but I didn’t want to abandon my stalwart friends, who, for all I knew, had already seen the note and headed for the Land of Pie. If so, they would surely appreciate the presence of another ‘Viner, and so I drove to Marie Calendar’s. When I arrived, I realized to my horror that Julie and Steve had bailed on the meeting, which made sense, ‘cuz, if you know Julie and Steve, they’re the sort who can get pretty peeved about unannounced location switcheroos.
     Despite the time—I was twenty minutes late—I was among the first to arrive at the House of Mucilage. I found Sherry and one or two others talking shop in a private room which comprised a long Last Supper-style table. Sherry, who sat in Judas’ chair, seemed surprised (horrified?) to see me. Nevertheless, she received me cordially, in a minimalist sort of way, and, for once, she gave me a copy of the agenda, etc. My gratitude was so great that a blushed, and the room was bathed in red light, though that could have been caused by the goddamn Christmas lights that someone had stapled to the wall.
     Others soon trailed in until about eight of us sat around the table, and, by then, the conversation became business-like. The discussion turned to the faculty evaluation procedures, a copy of which Sherry had distributed, and so I took the opportunity to draw everyone’s attention to section L, which seemed to forbid the critical comments that President Mathur had been adding to the evaluation forms of some of his faculty critics (e.g., me). Amazingly, several in attendance took my concern seriously, and they advised me to speak with Ken Woodward, who had not yet arrived.
     Soon, the proceedings seemed just like a meeting, and so, ever the stickler for detail, I asked, “Has the meeting begun?” Sherry said No. Nevertheless, my question seemed to cause her to declare that the meeting had now begun, which surprised me. I asked, politely, if we had a quorum, and, as she had done during a previous meeting, Sherry ignored me. Pete Espinoza, however, interrupted Sherry, saying, “I think this is important; the meetings of every organization I’ve ever belonged to start by determining whether there is a quorum,” or something to that effect. One or two others said they agreed. An unfamiliar woman then suggested that we simply hold an informal/unofficial meeting. The suggestion caused Sherry obvious pain; evidently, she expected to do some real business, despite the unhelpful Marie Calendar ambiance, which seems to shout, “Mmmm! It’s time for pie!”, and the switcheroo.

     But it was clear to all that, though we had pie, we did not yet have a quorum. After a few others arrived, the quorum issue was raised again, and a discussion of quorum rules ensued. The discussion was odd, for opinion was very divided, and it was clear that, among this group, the quorum rules were at best unfamiliar. “Could it be that, previously, the Association has not attended to quorums during its meetings, despite its bylaws?”, I asked myself. A voice in my head said, simply, “Yup.”
     Initially, Sherry seemed unsure whether it was the presence of 2/3 or 1/2 of Rep. Council members that made a quorum, though she soon settled on the latter proportion. (In fact, as I discovered later, the “new” bylaws state that a majority of Rep. Council members constitutes a quorum.) Naturally, some of us attempted to determine the exact number of Rep. Council members (i.e., the number of division reps plus officers), but this, too, produced confusion and controversy, in part because some forgot that IVC is part of the SOCCCD. For instance, someone mentioned that some divisions are represented at each meeting by two reps. And yet, as Ray C noted, the bylaws clearly state that each division is to be accorded only one rep. I think someone said, “Whaddya know!”
     In any case, we continued to try to determine the number of division reps. Then someone asked me, “Are you a division rep?”, and I responded, “I would be if the President would allow it.” This inspired Walt (?) to ask for clarification about my status. (You will recall that, though Steve and I were unanimously elected as reps by the FA members of our schools, during the April 28 union meeting, Sherry refused to recognize us as such. During a more recent meeting, I insisted on being recognized, which led to talk among some union regulars of some sort of accommodation.) In response, Sherry declared that we would not discuss that matter during this meeting. Then, inexplicably, the meeting proceeded.

     It seemed to me that the quorum issue had been left unresolved, for, though some members were under the impression that we were quorum-less, in fact, Sherry had made no clear decision on the matter. Eventually, Sherry declared that the meeting would now go into “closed session,” an occurrence that required that I leave the room, since I, as a non-division rep and non-officer, was not a member of the Rep. Council. Sharon Macmillan made a plea to allow me to remain, but Sherry was unresponsive. As I got up to leave, I reminded Sherry that this so-called “closed” meeting could not be official unless there were a quorum. Then I was told that the closed session would last no longer than fifteen minutes, and that someone would fetch me when it was over.
     I waited a little while, but it seemed to me that I had been put into an undignified situation, for I was sitting by myself, pie-less and disenfranchised, in Marie Calendar’s. I got the hell out of there.

     TWO HOURS LATER, people began to assemble outside the SC conference room where the Board Meeting is usually held. The Board’s 5-7 closed session was running late, and so we were locked out until well after 7:00. Luckily, we were entertained by the delightful spectacle of students setting fire to their hair and stabbing themselves in the arm. We all hooted and applauded, which, along with the hair fires, kept us warm and toasty.
     The Board meeting commenced with the usual rites: the Pledge of Allegiance, a prayer, and the ritual burning of jello. (Is it just me, or are others also creeped out by doing the Pledge? I bet the Mafia has a Pledge of Allegiance.)
     New Board officers were elected. The result: Williams is now the President, etc.
     Some of the speakers during the “public comments” portion of the meeting were provocative. For instance, the Jewish Defense League showed up, and two of its members spoke in their usual vulgar manner. One of them simply hurled inelegant insults at Frogue for three solid minutes. The crowd embraced this fellow as it might embrace an undulating pile of banana slugs.
     But matters soon improved. The president of “Women For” (OC) spoke on behalf of Pauline Merry, a recent recipient of the organization’s “Woman of the Year” award and an even more recent object of the Board Majority’s displeasure. (Against expectations, no announcement concerning Dr. Merry’s fate was made that night.) Other speakers (Brenda B, et al.) spoke movingly against Frogue and the Board. As I kind of counterpoint to Raghu’s recent remarks (see above), I read some results of the recent IVC Accreditation Survey. (E.g., 67% of full-time IVC faculty disagreed with this statement: The college president fosters effective communication within the college community.)
     Student Shelly Riddle politely read the recently-ratified ASIVC resolution concerning the Board Majority. It stated, among other things, that the ASIVC are “outraged” concerning the Majority’s “reckless and unwarranted...reorganizational changes” and have “no confidence” in the Majority, who were individually named. More specifically, the resolution asserted that members of the majority had made statements to ASIVC that did not square with the facts, judging by information the students had acquired.
     As Shelly returned to her seat, Trustee Fortune proceeded to hector her concerning the source of the students’ information. Fortune’s inappropriate prosecutorial manner clearly upset Shelly, who nevertheless held her ground, stating repeatedly that the Board had been sent documents that cited the sources in question. Then Bill Hewitt, who had helped secure the information from the district, stood up to respond to Fortune’s challenges. Predictably, Bill was met with shouts from Williams and Fortune, who indicated that he was out of order. To his everlasting credit, Bill continued, undeterred. In the end, Fortune came across like a first-class Arschloch.
     The next and last speaker was Pourya Khademi, another ASIVC representative. He responded to Trustee Frogue’s recent remarks that seemed to dismiss student government (“those kids”) as illegitimate. Pourya made all the right points, and he made them terribly well.
     I know of several students who, in recognizing and responding to the incompetence and venality of the Board Majority and their friends, have grown tremendously as persons. Shelly and Pourya are among them. Perhaps they can serve as an example to faculty.
     Please read the most recent Irvine World News, which contains several useful articles and a helpful editorial. —CW

How the union operates (late ’97): Bauer once again pisses off Sherry Miller-White

From the ‘Vine, 11/8/97 [Then, a newsletter of the IVC School of Humanities]

Bauer pisses off Sherry Miller-White 

You will recall that I was chosen as “division rep” for our school in February (or March?). For a time, Steve R. (of Fine Arts) and I were recognized as division reps by Sherry M-W. Then, during the meeting of April 28, we were told that, since the union was now forced (by Steve and Roy, among others) to follow the bylaws, Steve and I could not be recognized as reps, for (said Sherry), according to the bylaws, elections are held in August, and we weren’t elected then. (In fact, the bylaws—or at least the bylaws identified by Sherry as current at that time—said no such thing; they said that elections are held in April.) 

When, however, August rolled around and we raised the question of rep elections again, we were told that division rep elections occur every two years, and so we would have to wait for another year to be elected. 

This, of course, means that, except for Ray “Die Hard” Chandos, no IVC faculty are in the union’s Representative Council—its decision-making body, which includes, among others, division reps. 

Just before October’s meeting, Julie had heard that two Saddleback faculty had recently been elected and recognized by Sherry as division reps. “Why then,” we asked, “aren’t Steve and Roy also recognized as duly elected division reps?” 

So some of us went to the meeting to ask that very question. 

When the meeting started, however, it was obvious that the small group in attendance could not possibly constitute a quorum. Sherry, of course, made no effort to determine whether a quorum had been achieved. Therefore, I asked: “Do you have a quorum?” Sherry responded by ignoring me. I decided to ask the same question every few seconds, with indifference to whatever else was going on. This eventually caused Sherry to say: “According to Roberts’ Rules of Order, I don’t have to recognize you, and I don’t.” (I wonder who she was talking to?) 

She proceeded to ignore me most furiously, but I kept asking about the quorum and about the unfairness of ignoring IVC “rep” elections while recognizing Saddleback “rep” elections, etc. Eventually, one of the Rep. Council members—a nubie—said, “Why doesn’t somebody answer this guy’s question?” 

Sherry wasn’t about to answer my questions. Instead, she announced that the “closed session” would now commence, and that, therefore, those who were not members of the Rep. Council should leave. I, however, was not inclined to leave, for, in my view, I’m on the Rep. Council. I kept asking my questions (calmly, as before), and Sherry grew angry and peevish. After a few seconds, Steve and Bob persuaded me to leave the room with them (and Julie, et al.), and so we left without incident. 

Harry Paramer

While we waited (for over an hour!) outside the meeting room, we learned that Sherry [or Ann Hagerty?] had called the cops! Big old Harry Parmer showed up with a bemused look on his face. He explained that, evidently, Sherry had called for cops, but, three minutes later, she called them off. Parmer decided to show up anyway, just for laughs I guess. 

Though we were told that the closed session would last only a few minutes, the door did not open for over an hour. When it did, the meeting was over. No apologies were offered. 

One person who emerged from the room (I forget his name) assured Steve, Julie, and I that a special election of FA members would be held to consider whether Steve and I should be allowed to be division reps, despite an alleged “technicality” that precluded that. Apparently, that is what they had been discussing during the lengthy closed session.

Howard Dachslager’s theory: Irvine Valley College was run by a Humanities “cult”

     Howard Dachslager was among the “east end of campus” faculty who viewed themselves as opposed to the Humanities (and Bio) faculty. The latter tended to have positions of authority (i.e., participated in shared governance) at IVC: Peter Morrison, Terry Burgess [then a VPI], Rebecca Welch, et al.  

From the ‘Vine, 11/8/97 [“The ‘VINE: the School of Humanities and Languages’ Unofficial Newsletter November 8, 1997”] 

Howard’s End 

     Shelly, an IVC student government officer, told me on Thursday (the 6th [of November, 1997]) that math instructor Howard Dachslager visited IVC student government and gave a fine address. Students wanted to know how the recent reorganization would affect them. Howard was reassuring; he told students that, for years, the college was run by a “cult”—one like, said Howard, “the Branch Davidians.” He seemed to equate this cult with the faculty of the School of Humanities and Languages. According to Howie (said Shel), the cultists hold math in very low esteem, and they have managed to advance the interests of “the Humanities” while thwarting the interests of math, the sciences, and Voc Ed. [Howard was expressing a view that had often been expressed by Raghu.] 

     Inexplicably, Howard apparently cited the relative dearth of Math full-timers at IVC as evidence of the cult’s connivery. But wait! Haven’t math instructors themselves perennially blocked full-time math hires—contrary to the judgment of, among others, Humanities and Languages faculty? At any rate, such was the case when I was a senator for many years. I have heard it suggested by reliable sorts that some math faculty have repeatedly blocked new full-time hires in order to maintain their stunningly lucrative teaching assignments. 

     Howard, it seems, is convinced that the elimination of the chairs in favor of deans will end the era of abuses at “north campus,” his term for IVC. “Power corrupts,” he said, and it has tended to corrupt chairs, especially those pesky H & L chairs on the grassy knoll. [Howard expressed similar views to me when we participated in an orientation for new Chairs in May or June of ’97.] 

     He did not explain why the same power, put instead in others’ hands, ceases to be corruptive.  

See also Textbooks at IVC

The November 8, 1997, issue of the 'VINE (Chunk Wheeler): Frogue recall petition

     [Dissent was an outgrowth of the ‘Vine, and the ‘Vine was an outgrowth of my newsletter for the School of Humanities and Languages. The articles below appeared in an early ‘Vine that still focused on H&L faculty at IVC. 

    At the time of this issue of the ‘Vine, Raghu had recently been appointed “permanent” President of IVC after having been named interim President in April. Both appointments were later determined to be illegal (owing to Brown Act violations). 

     During the previous July, the district had been “reorganized,” again illegally, or so the courts determined later on. In that reorganization, deans disliked by the union Old Guard at Saddleback College were exported to IVC. This turned out to be a stroke of luck for IVC’s School of H&L, for Dan Rivas was “imposed” upon us. Ultimately, Dan resigned his deanship owing to his inability to tolerate the corrupt orders given him by Mathur, e.g., the direction to include unwarranted critical remarks in the evaluations of faculty. The only faculty affected, of course, were those who had been critical of him and his patrons.] 

From the ‘Vine, 11/8/97 

The ‘VINE: the School of Humanities and Languages’ Unofficial Newsletter November 8, 1997 

THIS AND THAT by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]  

Goals and objectives, Raghu style 

 Recently, President Mathur instructed the deans to write “goals and objectives” for their respective schools. As usual, Raghu was terribly helpful. Indeed, in order to spare the deans the trouble of making their own decisions, he passed out some goals and objectives that, he seemed to say, the deans were required to embrace as their own! And what goals they were! Evidently, in Raghu’s mind, the deans should seek to inspire “loyalty”—to Raghu, that is. 

The “Vision” Thing 

     As I am sure you are aware, there is a perception that the president lacks a vision for our college. Not that he hasn’t devoted considerable time and energy to this matter, for he has repeatedly asked his officers to produce vision stuff. Such requests demonstrate—as if demonstration were necessary!—Raghu’s deep commitment to shared governance, for he is even willing to share his own responsibilities with others! 

     I, for one, reject the notion that our President is visionless, for, during my brief stint as chair of our fine butt-kicking school, I attended meetings in which Raghu articulated what can only be described as a distinctive Weltanshauung, i.e., a vision. I have kept a lovely photograph of one such occasion (July 1). Check it out. 

      [In what follows, I refer to a meeting (in June?) called by interim President Mathur at 7:30 or so in the morning. All School Chairs were required to attend. A day or two earlier, Wendy Gabriella (then “Phillips”) had been relieved of her duties as Chair of her School, owing to Raghu’s dissatisfaction with a report that she had written. At the meeting, Raghu, punching the top of the table with his finger, declared, “Disloyalty will not be tolerated!”] 

     The occasion here depicted is particularly memorable for me, for I arrived five minutes late and thus did not realize that the President had already advised everyone that there would be “no discussion or questions.” (As you know, the unwelcomeness of questions and discussion has become the tacit theme of the Raghu administration.) Imagine others’ shock, then, when, at the meeting’s end, I blurted out several questions with no inkling of my audacity! And imagine my embarrassment upon learning of my error. (“I said at the start, you are not to ask questions!”)

     The photograph, of course, dispels any doubt that Raghu has a vision for our college.

 

Ms. Fortune is visited upon us 

     I have learned that the trustees (or at least one trustee--Dorothy Fortune?) has given the order to Raghu to require of the deans that they keep a record of all of their activities. They are to make entries at the rate of once every half hour for a period of months, I believe. 

     This innovation is unpopular with some of the deans. “How much detail,” they ask, “is required in the case of, say, visits to the bathroom? We need clarification!” 

     (I have also heard that the order has been temporarily rescinded by the Chancellor.)

Howard’s End 

     Shelly, an IVC student government officer, told me on Thursday (the 6th) that math instructor Howard Dachslager visited IVC student government and gave a fine address. Students wanted to know how the recent reorganization would affect them. Howard was reassuring; he told students that, for years, the college was run by a “cult”—one like, said Howard, “the Branch Davidians.” He seemed to equate this cult with the faculty of the School of Humanities and Languages. According to Howie (said Shel), the cultists hold math in very low esteem, and they have managed to advance the interests of “the Humanities” while thwarting the interests of math, the sciences, and Voc Ed. [Howard was expressing a view that had often been expressed by Raghu.] 

     Inexplicably, Howard apparently cited the relative dearth of Math full-timers at IVC as evidence of the cult’s connivery. But wait! Haven’t math instructors themselves perennially blocked full-time math hires—contrary to the judgment of, among others, Humanities and Languages faculty? At any rate, such was the case when I was a senator. I have heard it suggested that some math faculty have repeatedly blocked new full-time hires in order to maintain their stunningly lucrative teaching assignments. 

     Howard, it seems, is convinced that the elimination of the chairs in favor of deans will end the era of abuses at “north campus,” his term for IVC. “Power corrupts,” he said, and it has tended to corrupt chairs, especially those pesky H & L chairs on the grassy knoll. [Howard expressed similar views to me when we participated in an orientation for new Chairs in May or June of ’97.] 

     He did not explain why the same power, put instead in others’ hands, ceases to be corruptive. 

The staff development questionnaire 

     As you know, not long ago, a survey concerning “staff development activities” was conducted. It presented a long list of “ideas” (such as “make people laugh” and “put on talent shows”), and respondents (viz., faculty) were asked to rank or rate them. 

     The results of that survey are now available. I am told that, because the results exude negativity, the president sought to publish only the “score” results, which are virtually incomprehensible. That is, he sought to suppress the “comments” results, which are entirely comprehensible. But he was pressured by those who have a commitment to openness even greater than his own to make all results available, and a compromise was reached. Accordingly, the full report will not be distributed, but it will be made available at the Office of Instruction to those few who ask for it. [Naturally, I did so.] 

     Naturally, I have been distributing the full report like a sonofabitch. 

     Here’s a sample of the comments contained therein (deleted). 

     (For comments, see ARCHIVES: November 8, 1997) 

Irvine World News editorial 

From the Nov. 6 edition: 

Is it PR spinning or stonewalling? 

     Trustees of the South Orange County Community College District—the majority foursome— have become increasingly unresponsive to questions from legitimate news organizations about matters that concern district residents--you know, the taxpayers who pay the bills for this public institution. 

     The four trustees who make up the majority of the district's seven-member governing board either don't respond to telephone inquiries, or provide only cryptic answers to questions that cry for further explanation. 

     On another front, they have attempted to find someone—a public relations person—who can "control the press" on their behalf and deliver them from criticism. 

     Even district administrators who do answer telephone inquiries seem reluctant to respond fully to legitimate questions by representatives of news organizations. 

     And the leaders of the faculty union, a powerful voice in the district for many years, simply don't respond at all. 

     They are stonewalling, perhaps in the belief they're untouchable. Because of tenure, perhaps they are. 

     But if the people who are running this multi-million-dollar public entity, either in name or de facto, will not respond to questions by legitimate representatives of legitimate news organizations, where does that leave the taxpayers? 

     In the dark, we'd say. Whether they want to admit it, the college folks are answerable to a public constituency and news organizations are the conduits for information the constituency has a right to know. 

     The public has to wonder what these public officials and/or public employees are hiding. If they feel the need to be so secretive, can it be good? Is it in the interests of the tax-paying public? 

     Or is it that whatever they're doing won't stand up to public scrutiny? [End] 

     In the same issue, a letter by Mr. Steven J. Fischer appears. It supports Raghu and bemoans the way the IWN has been “tainting” Raghu’s reputation. 

Two articles in the OC Jewish Heritage 

From the Oct. 24 edition: 

1. Supporters of Frogue pack meeting of college board [BRIN] 

By Stan Brin 

     Opponents of controversial South Orange County Community College District president Steven Frogue found themselves all but locked out of Monday night's monthly board meeting after a group of roughly 30 boisterous Frogue supporters arrived early and took the board room's limited seating. 

     Members of the group described themselves as followers of Willis Carto's "Liberty Lobby," identified more than 30 years ago as a neo-nazi organization. 

     Roughly 100 persons, most of them Frogue opponents, listened to the proceedings on a loudspeaker installed in the courtyard of the Saddleback College library, Many complained that the seats inside the board room were occupied long before the meeting began. 

     Opponents are organizing a recall petition drive, inspired by Frogue's attempt to promote a college seminar that would promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. 

     One after the other, the neo-nazis came to the microphone and accused the board minority and the Anti-Defamation League of trying to deprive Frogue of his civil rights and to cover up an alleged ADL Mossad plot to kill President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. 

     "I'm tired of a thought police running things," James X. Kennedy, a Frogue supporter, told the board. "And the Mossad did kill Kennedy!" 

     Four speakers with Muslim names praised Frogue and attacked the ADL "I am deeply disturbed by threats by Jewish organizations, the ADL and the JDL, to 'take him out,'" one of them said. 

     ADL volunteer Phil Brustein replied that "there is no civil right to spend tax money or student fees on an ideologically motivated project." 

     The neo-nazi group loudly cheered one another’s speeches and interrupted those who disagreed with them. Board president Frogue, in charge of maintaining order, did not attempt to quiet his supporters. One of his supporters installed a video camera in a section reserved for the press and taped the comments of Frogue opponents. 

     A Frogue supporter, board member John Williams, a Republican, called the objections of Frogue's opponents irrelevant to his job of board president. One speaker, Saddleback College Prof. Glenn Roevenmore [sic, but I like it], suggested that support and opposition for Frogue had nothing to do with his nazi ties but from his backing of one side in an internal, nonpartisan administrative struggle. 

     The single item on the agenda, a motion to remove Frogue as president, failed by an expected three-to-four vote with Frogue himself casting the deciding vote. 

     Following the meeting, Frogue closeted himself at the end of a hallway with five members of the neo-nazi group, causing one opponent to comment that "now we know how they got all the seats....” 

     When a reporter pointed to the neo-nazis surrounding the board president, Dorothy Fortune, a member of the Orange County Democratic Central Committee as well as a Frogue supporter, appeared startled. She recovered and said that Frogue's personal politics were irrelevant to the job of running the college district. 

---PETITION 

2. Official recall petition says Steven Frogue is ‘disgraced’ 

     The following is the text of the petition being circulated urging that a recall election be held to remove Steven Frogue from his position on the South Orange County Community College District board: 

To the Honorable Board of the South Orange County Community College District: 

     Pursuant to the California Constitution and Californian election laws, we the undersigned registered and qualified electors of the South Orange County Community College District of Orange County respectfully state that we seek the recall and removal of STEVEN J.FROGUE holding office of Trustee of the Governing Board of the South Orange County Community College District of Orange County California. 

     We demand an election of a successor to that office.... 

     The grounds for the recall are as follows: 

• found guilty on two counts of violating the California Open Meeting Law by Judge William McDonald of the Orange County Superior Court....  

• openly opposed, in writing, shared governance, a governance structure mandated by state laws....  

• disgraced nationally the District and its colleges by proposing and approving his own course, a JFK assassination course "giving legitimacy to bigoted ravings with no balance from opposing points of view." 

• attacked, insulted and ignored—in pub1ic meetings of the Board of Trustees--students faculty, staff and members of the community.... 

• deliberately circumvented—in the IVC Presidential hiring—the Board of Trustees’ published hiring policy.... 

• received a no-confidence vote of 72.5 per cent of the Irvine Valley College faculty.... 

     In his reply, Frogue did not address the issues raised by the supporters of the recall, but concluded: “Petition is a waste of taxpayer money. Please don't sign it!" 

District “Sexual harassment” seminar is a success 

     On November 6, a program concerning sexual harassment was presented at Saddleback College. It is my understanding that the event was organized, with the enthusiastic support of Saddleback College President Doffoney, in response to an incident in which an infamously intemperate union crony allegedly struck a female instructor. Though the incident was witnessed by two others (Mr. T and a “woman behind the door”), the witnesses did not agree concerning the facts. (The female witness alleges that, when the hitting incident occurred, Mr. T walked up to the “crony” and said, “I didn’t see a thing.”) 

     In their introductory remarks, Chancellor Lombardi and Saddleback College President Doffoney made no effort to disguise the fact that incidents at the college inspired the seminar. No names, however, were mentioned. (Actually, I had to leave before the final hour of the presentation, so maybe names were mentioned. I hope so.) 

Rumors about Lombardi and Doffoney 

     It is beginning to be clear that Lombardi and Doffoney will not be with the district much longer. 

     If so, truly frightening events may soon occur. 

     Chancellor Mathur? 

     President Lorch? 

     President Runyan? 

     GOOD LORD!! 

The second lawsuit 

     Wendy and I have filed a second lawsuit against the Board. It concerns the July 6 “reorganization” board meeting and the Sept. 8 “ratification of Mathur actions” board meeting. 

     This suit—which is quite promising—will entail depositions and other expensive activities. Those who wish to donate money to the legal fund should contact Jerry Ruddman or Bill Hewitt. 

     Bill Schaefer, an experienced attorney who is assisting us, named, not simply “the board,” but each of its individual members, in the suit. Apparently, this inspired much gnashing of teeth among board members who saw the paperwork. Hearing about this kept us smiling for days. 

The “History is not a conspiracy” film series a smashing success 

     That’s right! If you haven’t told your students about the film series, please do so! Generally, the films are shown on Wednesday afternoons (every other week) at 2:00 p.m. For info, please contact Andrew Tonkovitch or Lisa Alvarez. Soon, they’ll be showing the wonderful Incident at Oglalla, I believe. 

Bauer pisses off Sherry Miller-White 

     You will recall that I was chosen as “division rep” for our school in February (or March?). For a time, Steve R. (of Fine Arts) and I were recognized as division reps by Sherry M-W. Then, during the meeting of April 28, we were told that, since the union was now forced (by Steve and Roy, among others) to follow the bylaws, Steve and I could not be recognized as reps, for (said Sherry), according to the bylaws, elections are held in August, and we weren’t elected then. (In fact, the bylaws—or at least the bylaws identified by Sherry as current at that time—said no such thing; they said that elections are held in April.) 

     When, however, August rolled around and we raised the question of rep elections again, we were told that division rep elections occur every two years, and so we would have to wait for another year to be elected. 

     This, of course, means that, except for Ray “Die Hard” Chandos, no IVC faculty are in the union’s Representative Council—its decision-making body, which includes, among others, division reps. 

      Just before October’s meeting, Julie had heard that two Saddleback faculty had recently been elected and recognized by Sherry as division reps. “Why then,” we asked, “aren’t Steve and Roy also recognized as duly elected division reps?” 

     So some of us went to the meeting to ask that very question. 

     When the meeting started, however, it was obvious that the small group in attendance could not possibly constitute a quorum. Sherry, of course, made no effort to determine whether a quorum had been achieved. Therefore, I asked: “Do you have a quorum?” Sherry responded by ignoring me. I decided to ask the same question every few seconds, with indifference to whatever else was going on. This eventually caused Sherry to say: “According to Roberts’ Rules of Order, I don’t have to recognize you, and I don’t.” (I wonder who she was talking to?) 

     She proceeded to ignore me most furiously, but I kept asking about the quorum and about the unfairness of ignoring IVC “rep” elections while recognizing Saddleback “rep” elections, etc. Eventually, one of the Rep. Council members—a nubie—said, “Why doesn’t somebody answer this guy’s question?” 

     Sherry wasn’t about to answer my questions. Instead, she announced that the “closed session” would now commence, and that, therefore, those who were not members of the Rep. Council should leave. I, however, was not inclined to leave, for, in my view, I’m on the Rep. Council. I kept asking my questions (calmly, as before), and Sherry grew angry and peevish. After a few seconds, Steve and Bob persuaded me to leave the room with them (and Julie, et al.), and so we left without incident. 

     While we waited (for over an hour!) outside the meeting room, we learned that Sherry [or Ann Hagerty?] had called the cops! Big old Harry Parmer showed up with a bemused look on his face. He explained that, evidently, Sherry had called for cops, but, three minutes later, she called them off. Parmer decided to show up anyway, just for laughs I guess. 

     Though we were told that the closed session would last only a few minutes, the door did not open for over an hour. When it did, the meeting was over. No apologies were offered. 

     One person who emerged from the room (I forget his name) assured Steve, Julie, and I that a special election of FA members would be held to consider whether Steve and I should be allowed to be division reps, despite an alleged “technicality” that precluded that. Apparently, that is what they had been discussing during the lengthy closed session. 

Are Frogue’s friends nazis? 

     Stan Brin (of Jewish Heritage) says that the Frogue supporters who showed at the last board meeting were “nazis.” That’s hyperbole, I think. 

     So who were those unsavory characters who spoke in defense of Trustee Frogue at the last board meeting, and to what extent is Frogue affiliated with them? Inquiring minds want to know. 

     Brin reported that the speakers identified themselves as members of Liberty Lobby. 

     Consider these facts: 

     Frogue praised the publications of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) in a 1995 Voice interview. (The IHR’s chief publication is the Journal of Historical Review.) 

     The IHR was founded by Willis Carto, the foremost anti-Semite in the country, a man who has said that “Hitler’s defeat was the defeat of Europe...And America.” 

     The current director of the IHR is Mark Weber, who, in newsletters, has referred to the Holocaust as a “hoax.” Weber was once affiliated with the National Alliance, a notorious Hitlerian organization. 

     About two years ago, Weber and other IHR officers noisily ousted Carto from the IHR. This led to lawsuits which resulted in a transfer of millions of dollars from Carto to the IHR. 

     According to Weber, Frogue attended at least one court hearing regarding the Carto/IHR conflict, and seemed “so sympathetic” with Carto. 

     Willis Carto also founded Liberty Lobby and its weekly newspaper, the Spotlight. The Spotlight, of course, is the paper that employs Michael Collins Piper, one of the persons Frogue sought to invite for his forum on the JFK assassination. (Frogue says he met with Piper in Washington about a year ago.) Piper, who believes that Israel was involved in the assassination of JFK, is a typical “Liberty Lobby” type. For instance, he is a critic of Deborah Lipstadt, author of the acclaimed book Denying the Holocaust, and he has publicly challenged some of her (anti-denial) claims. 

     Included on the masthead of the Spotlight are such names as Robert Weems, who was once affiliated with the KKK; Tom Valentine, who has defended Hitler on his radio show; James Townsend (of Fullerton), who advertises hardcore anti-Semitic works such as “The International Jew”; Bradley Smith, who is the best-known holocaust denier in the U.S.; and Ron Gostick, who runs two extremist magazines and advertises/sells Jewish-conspiracy books such as The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. 

     What does it all mean? Dunno. Obviously, Frogue has a right to hang with anybody he likes, even neo-nazis. On the other hand, voters have a right to know what sort of man (philosophically, anyway) Trustee Frogue is, as do union members whose dues have kept him in office.

     I urge you to surf the net, gathering info concerning Liberty Lobby, the Spotlight, the Institute for Historical Review, etc. I recommend starting with Greg Raven’s IHR website. It includes the Journal articles that, evidently, impressed Frogue two years ago. 

     Scary, man. 

The “Lariette” 

     A young Saddleback journalism student named Hessel has started a website called the Lariette. (A recent article in the Times described the Lariette and the circumstances that inspired it.) Hessel intends to use the Lariette to report news that the Lariat’s advisor (Lee “Droopy” Walker) won’t allow that newspaper to cover. 

     (Lee has been his usual self as the advisor of the Lariat; at one point, he [allegedly] threatened a student with a lawsuit!)

“WE DON’T NEED TO HIRE A CLOWN”: FACULTY SOUND OFF ON MATHUR (1997)

THE CONTEXT: Raghu had recently been appointed “permanent” President of IVC after having been named interim President in April. Both appointments were later determined to be illegal (owing to Brown Act violations). During the previous July, the district had been “reorganized,” again illegally, or so the courts determined later on. Evidently, in October or November, President Mathur held an administrative “retreat” in Lake Arrowhead, which produced a list of possible inspirational activities for Flex Week. This list was widely distributed and comments were solicited. The results of that solicitation were compiled in a document. The remarks that they contain provides a wonderful glimpse into how Mathur was perceived in late 1997, six months into his reign. One might compare that perception with the one that prevails today throughout the district. Mathur did not distribute the document, but I got a copy of it and included it in the ‘Vine of November 8, 1997 (Dissent was an outgrowth of the ‘Vine; the 'Vine concerned IVC news; Dissent was for the entire district).]

The staff development questionnaire As you know, not long ago, a survey concerning “staff development activities” was conducted. It presented a long list of “ideas” (such as “make people laugh” and “put on talent shows”), and respondents (viz., faculty) were asked to rank or rate them. The results of that survey are now available. I am told that, because the results exude negativity, the president sought to publish only the “score” results, which are virtually incomprehensible. That is, he sought to suppress the “comments” results, which are entirely comprehensible. But he was pressured by those who have a commitment to openness even greater than his own to make all results available, and a compromise was reached. Accordingly, the full report will not be distributed, but it will be made available at the Office of Instruction to those few who ask for it. Naturally, I have been distributing the full report like a sonofabitch. Here’s a sample of the comments contained therein: 

  —COMMENTS AND IDEAS: 

 * I felt 'valued' and 'recognized' until last November's board election and subsequent 'reign of terror'. None of the suggestions above are important to the success of the college. Once a great success, IVC can now prepare for mediocrity. 

 *None! Waste of time! Some of these are already in place anyway. 

 *This is stupid!.... 

 *I will not print my name for fear of continual harassment by the illegitimate college president. 

 *Circulate admonishment trading cards. 1 ) Title the administrative newsletter 'The Back door Mathur'—chronicling the lively adventures of IVC's irrepressible and oh so unethical illegitimate president.... 

 *To recognize achievement try shared governance rather than an autocracy from the board....   *Resignation of the President of IVC. 

 *Restoration of meaningful shared governance. 

 *Resignation of board majority. 

 *This is ridiculous! I am unwilling to participate in this charade of camaraderie. I maintain collegial professional relationships with fellow professors who earn my respect! I hope we are not using taxpayer money to develop or 'print' this nonsense.... 

 *Enforced social events are fiascoes. Enforced or forced 'laughter' is worse.... 

 *Most of these are silly. We have no re-assigned time to do jobs that are necessary and required yet we are being asked to consider all of these social events and time in other people's classes, laughing.... 

 *These things will not take care of campus problems. Ethics and morality will as would respect which is mutual. If and when the president and Board show respect for the rest of us, we may reach a point of returning it. This still is not happening from the top down. Reassigning faculty could have been a good solution a few years ago. NOT NOW. Forcing people together will only make things worse. 

 Questions: 

 1 ) How many taxpayers dollars were spent on this retreat? 

 2) How does Mr. Mathur justify being named college president in a process which included no meaningful input from staff or faculty? 

 3) How can Mr. Mathur expect meaningful collaboration among a group so thoroughly demoralized by a corrupt presidential search? Dear Pam - Please convey to the president that I cannot respond to these frivolous questions. The only important issue on the IVC campus at present is the restoration of shared governance and the removal of irrational and destructive Board members and their illegally selected appointees....

 *Illegitimate president Mathur resign. Are you people out of your minds?! Replace Raghu Mathur with John Ausmus. As a managerial exercise, ask Raghu how he would arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. This survey is ludicrous, given the state of affairs at Irvine Valley College. We are ashamed of the president and all that he stands for.... 

 *There are some really awful ideas on this list. Also, many seem to have little to do with staff development. Also most are too general or vague to be meaningful. If you really want people to work together and feel like meaningful members of a team—TRY SHARED GOVERNANCE! 

 *You've got to be kidding! We wasted money on a retreat to do this? Pam—Although I realize that the ideas generated in the "staff Development Activities" survey are not your own, I find it very difficult to take this survey seriously. 

 First, I do not need, nor do I desire, formal recognition for personal or professional events. My work and my personal life speak for themselves. 

 Second, I find the "working together" portion of this survey unbelievably naive. It shows just how out-of-touch President Mathur is if he thinks lists like this will be viewed seriously. "Provide strong leadership" is not someone who slings crap with one hand and offers hugs with the other. 

 Also, we are already doing more work for less, so just when would teas, talent shows, and kayaking take place? This is not a debutante society. This is a place where serious work must take place, where educating students [is] a priority, where caring about others and working collegially comes from within and not from some "happy list". It is time to "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk". If this administration expects to be taken seriously, how about encouraging workshops on shared governance? Because until shared governance is truly and fully implemented, Irvine Valley College doesn't have a hope in hell of becoming the wonderful little jewel it once was. 

 First, I would like to know how much money Mr. Mathur spent on the retreat in Lake Arrowhead. 

 Secondly, I would like to say, whatever was spent, was wasted. If this questionnaire is the outcome of Mr. Mathur's retreat, I as a taxpayer want my money back, and I ask for a recall of the president. In looking over this questionnaire it seems that Mr. Mathur is not aware that some of his "strategies" have been in place for years. We have celebrated teaching excellence for years with something called "Teacher of the Year" (full- and part-time). The more I read of this questionnaire, and the more I experience as an employee, the more I see we have hired a fool as president. This used to be a happy place to work. Classified staff and faculty were very willing to participate on any number of college related activities. Mr. Mathur and his cohorts have complained about the same people serving on the same committees. Well now you have your way. People have resigned from chairing curriculum, accreditation, research, etc. Have your cohorts stepped forward? Few have. Now you're requiring your administrators to chair committees, and blaming them when they can't get people to volunteer. You've also tried to blame the former accreditation chair for the bad job the new accreditation chair is doing. We have jobs that have remained un-staffed for over a year, and you're talking about job swaps, or crosstraining. Have you ever heard of a contract (CTA & CSEA)? One of your strategies is "Make People Laugh". Is this going to be a requirement? How are you going to "make us laugh"? 

 I've heard it said we should hire a clown to make people laugh. My answer is we don't need to hire a clown, we already have one—he's serving as the president! 

 Mr. Mathur you acquired this job without following established process, the whole process that was followed was a sham, and a set-up for you to be given the job. You continue to say "let bygones be bygones, forget about past history". The problem is you keep creating the very history you want forgotten. You can't be trusted, you spend your time trying to pay people back for some wrong you feel has been done to you, or for lack of support for you or your friend, Steven Frogue. 

 Another strategy suggested in your questionnaire was "Provide Leadership". You are correct, we do need to be provided with leadership. You're just not the one to provide that leadership, and never will be. What happened to college-wide meetings, with the question and answer period??? 

 These remarks are directed to Mr. Mathur, not the rest of the administrative staff. While there are items listed that would seem worthy of attention, I am disheartened to think that any time or effort was spent on these suggestions in light of the Board Majority's Plan for District Reorganization (attached). Clearly the Board majority has a different agenda. 

 The survey reads "Provide additional support staff to allow time for participation in activities." Are the authors of the survey unaware that there is a hiring freeze and that the Board has expressed a desire to cut an additional 2.5% of classified staff (see #8 of the Board document)? And does anyone think that secretaries who read that they will have to compete with each other for their positions (see #9 of the Board document) are going to want teas and socials? Also in reference to "George" in the survey, I assume this means the PlO; but when there is only one PlO for the District (see #11 of the Board document), how will that person find time to keep track of birthdays, etc.? 

 But the survey has already achieved one item—"Making people laugh." Pam—In regards to the Rah-rah staff development activities, I have reviewed the ideas generated at the May administrative retreat and distributed in the recent memo, and I have a few more ideas that you might add to the list: 

 1 ) Hire cheerleaders to bounce around campus chanting the names of faculty and staff. 

 2) Have students paint themselves with school colors, and then spell out the name of the faculty/staff member of the week on their backsides. 

 3) Publish a ten-most-wanted list. 

 4) Get all of the faculty and staff together in a swimming pool full of strawberry jello and play pin the tail on the jackass. With my apologies to you, since I realize that the ideas that you have distributed are not your own, I must say that I don't shovel crap like this out of my horse's stall. I don't care if everyone gets together to give me a hug on my birthday, or if everyone knows that I have been named the Lifetime President of the International Society of Hog Callers, and hosting presidential "teas" to encourage campus good fellowship in the current atmosphere is like handing the captain of the Titanic a thimble. Reading suggestions like "having staff talent shows" makes me want to cry, thinking that anyone who could seriously suggest such a thoroughly absurd idea is in an administrative position at this college. 

 There are two problems here: first, these are not new ideas. The Staff Development Office has been doing things like those suggested here, including campus barbecues, dinners, appreciation nights, and trips to places like the Bowers Museum and the Dana Point Marine Institute. Second, and more important, the most significant way to recognize achievement is to solicit and act on the suggestions and ideas of the faculty and staff. An institution shows most effectively that it values its members when it treats them as part of the governance structure, granting them real responsibilities in the day-to-day business of the institution. Telling members of the faculty and staff "Happy Birthday," giving them flowers, and then telling them to get lost is insulting and patronizing, and encourages only bitterness and bad feeling. The suggestions listed in the memo make only a show of appreciation, without any real substance. The only kind of appreciation that counts is based upon respect, and respect is shown when one is rewarded for her efforts on the part of the college, not insulted by presidents and trustees who attack those who have worked hardest for the college's good. Until these insults stop, no one on this campus has received any real appreciation. 

 Please understand that these comments are not aimed at you, but at this substance of these truly absurd, horribly misguided suggestions. Frankly, I refuse to participate in any of the bullshit listed in the memo until real shared governance, not in form but in fact, is restored to this campus. The memo did achieve one of its own suggestions in that it made me laugh, but it was a hollow, bitter laugh.... 

 *The list of ideas generated of ways "to better work with each other as colleagues" is insulting. In my many years of working at IVC, I have been responsible for participating in the creation and maintenance of curriculum, in decisions that affect our facility and our budget, in the hiring of faculty, classified, and administrative employees, and in the development of tools for validating everything from the matriculation process to grading policies. 

 How dare you ask me whether I want to go kayaking. And how dare you suggest that I might "swap jobs' with my School's secretary or the VP of Instruction in order to discover what I already know excruciatingly well: everyone here works hard all the time. I am all too aware of why these lists of absurd ideas have been circulated. 72.5% of the employees of this college have profound differences with the unethical and illegal actions of the SOCCCD governing board and of those who participate with and benefit from the board's actions. Below you will find the text of Title 5 regulations regarding precisely how "working together works: "Consult collegially" means that the district governing board shall develop policies on academic and professional matters by 

 A) relying primarily on the advice and judgment of the academic senate for: 

 1) Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites; 

 2) Degree and certificate programs; 

 3) Grading policies; 

 4) Educational program development; 

 5) Standards or policies regarding student preparation and success; 

 6) College govemance structures, as related to faculty roles; 

 7) Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation process; 

 8) Policies for faculty professional development activities; 

 9) Processes for program review; and 

 10) Processes for institutional planning and budget development. 

 This is not a country club, folks. When the village is on fire, only a fool or arsonist holds an ice cream social. In fact, in the current atmosphere, I find your offer to "make people laugh" threatening and insidious. Soon, the results of the “Accreditation” survey will be made available. I can’t wait. [END]