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]

Is it PR spinning or stonewalling? (Irvine World News editorial)

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.