The Faculty Association Luncheon

THE FACULTY ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON
by Chunk Wheeler
The ‘Vine, 1/19/98

     Later, at 11:00, the union held its in-service luncheon at Saddleback College, so down I went. The turnout was quite good, despite the poor IVC representation. Kathleen Hodge, Rich McCullough, Sherry Miller-White, Ray Chandos, Ken Woodward, and Sharon MacMillan were among those who spoke before the group.
     Hodge and McCullough seemed as pleased as punch to be hanging out with the union crowd. I don’t know why.
     Chandos and Woodward spoke about grievance procedures, among other things. Woodward, a union negotiator, seemed to be preparing faculty for disappointment concerning the contract. He seemed to argue that our district’s financial problems--which, he insisted, are not so bad--are not the fault of the Board. He also complained about “free riders” among the faculty: people who complain about the union but who refuse to join it and make it better. (A few months ago, Woodward cited the “free rider” problem when he advocated negotiating for a district rule according to which faculty who quit the union would be fired. Naturally, the leadership went for it.)
     There I was, mesmerized!
     A student paraded before us on the outside walkway, and we all panned her. I almost shouted, “Hey, I joined the union, and what did I get? At meetings, they send me outside without pie!”
     Inexplicably, Mr. Woodward kept reminding the audience that he has a Ph.D. in economics.
     Sherry Miller-White and Sharon MacMillan suggested that some faculty have been conspiring to instigate well-timed negative newspaper articles designed, evidently, to undermine the union’s efforts to negotiate higher salaries with the district. They also suggested, I think, that these faculty are a part of the international Jewish conspiracy. Or maybe it was the International House of Pancakes.
     At one point, Sharon, who seemed continually ready to burst into tears, pleaded with the unnamed faculty turncoats to cease and desist. When her dirge was at its most lugubrious, she looked right into my eyes as though I were the conspiracy’s kingpin. (I was sitting only five feet from her.) “How odd,” I thought. “We’re having a staring contest.” I think I won, too. I get a lot of practice with Buster.
     It goes without saying, I hope, that speaking with reporters about the regrettable state of our district and college does not constitute engaging in a conspiracy. (Can one “conspire” to alert the public of facts?) Nor does it necessarily constitute attempting to undermine the union’s current negotiations. I’m certain no faculty member has that particular aim. Personally, I think money makes the world go ‘round.
     Some of us, however, do seek to address various serious problems--especially those concerning “process” and shared governance. Thanks to the union’s current leadership--a group who have provided us, not only high salaries, but President Mathur, Vice Chancellor Runyan, and the notorious Board Majority--faculty no longer have a significant voice in district or college governance. Under the circumstances, concerned faculty have no choice but to go to the press--i.e., the public.
     The proportion of the district’s budget that is devoted to salaries is only one issue--by no means the fundamental issue--in a complex web of issues of concern to that loosely associated group who constitute the “concerned faculty.” It should not be surprising that reporters, who value “sexy” stories, sometimes emphasize the “salary” story more than the “process” and “shared governance” stories, despite the advice and requests of most (perhaps all) “concerned faculty” who communicate with them.
     The latter stories are terribly important, and we will continue to urge the press to cover them.

THE ACADEMIC SENATE: 

     After the FA luncheon, I drove back up to IVC for the Academic Senate meeting. There, I learned that the deans had been told to write an assessment of the July 16 reorganization (relative to their schools) and that they have completed first drafts. The assembled reports were sent to Kate Clark for review by the Academic Senate.
     Kate was told, however, that the document was “confidential.” Hence, apparently, the Academic Senate was being charged with reviewing a document that it may not read.
     Everyone stared into the face of this dilemma, stupefied. We could think of nothing to say or do, so we went home.