Hangin' with Bigwig Republicans while Nazis hid in bushes - by Chunk

From Dissent 9, 9/28/98 

I do believe that, at the time of the affair described below, Michael Shroeder was state chair of the GOP. He is closely associated with Bob B-1 Dornan. (Bleccccch) 

 Originally entitled: STRANGE BEDFELLOWS by Chunk Wheeler 

     Though I had paid my one hundred bucks, I didn’t especially want to go to the Frogue Recall fundraiser at the Irvine Hyatt Regency. I figured it would be a stiff fancy pants affair and, besides, did I really want to hang out with the likes of Cox, Rohrabacher, Dornan, Sanchez, and the rest? Creepy, man. 

     Still, how could I not go? 

     I got there on time, and so I didn’t see the motley crew of Nazis who, I later learned, picketed outside, for the stupid fellows arrived late. (Someone should explain to these people that real Nazis are punctual.) I did, however, encounter a man at the entrance—not a Nazi, a Democrat—who waved a sign that said that Congressmen Cox and Rohrabacher are “hypocrites.” I said, “Well, of course,” and then started to walk inside; he handed me a red comb on which was written, “Get Dornan out of our hair!” 

     The usual crew of Recall stalwarts were already there. In a few years, we’ll all look back at the Frogue era, and everyone will pretend that they had a hand in bringing down Frogue and his friends. But that will be bullshit. When we get to the promised land, it will be because of a handful of principled people who worked quietly, stoically, often alone. 

     I’ve got to admit: I liked the layout at the Hyatt. We were outside, by the pool, and fabulous babes bathed in the background, or so Steve told me. Tables snaked around the trees and bushes, and there was a speakers’ stand sort of in the middle of things. They were sellin’ booze over to the side, and there was food, lots of it. 

     The place started hoppin’. Occasionally, announcements were made. Wylie Aitken, a local Democratic bigwig in a sharp black monkeysuit, said a few words and then introduced Congresswoman Loretta “Pit Stop” Sanchez, who, true to her reputation, had nothing of consequence to say, though her hair/smile combo was indeed impressive. “Let’s make OC a good place to live!” said Loretta before rushing off to her next event. 

     I was surprised to find that Marie Hill, the student trustee, had come. At board meetings, Ms. Hill leaves the impression of siding with the board majority, including of course Frogue, our man of dishonor. What was she doing at the recall fundraiser? 

     Bill H. spotted her from afar. He walked over and said, “I’m glad you finally came to your senses!” (That’s Bill all over.) 

     Jeff L. of ECCO (an OC gay rights organization) also spotted Ms. Hill and decided to go ask her why she hadn’t gone after Pam “Big Bird” Zanelli, the district’s ethically-challenged spinmeister. Zanelli was the “professional consultant” who, in ’96, gave the faculty union the idea of insuring the victory of its Sleazeball Slate by pandering to Republican homophobia. (“Stop same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates who want to take control of your tax dollars and your community colleges!”, said the mailer that was sent to receptive South County Republicans.) Jeff walked up to Marie and suggested to her that, if she really wanted to represent students, she should tag Zanelli and the board majority for that misdeed—to which they have never owned up. 

     Hill responded with noisy defensiveness. As I recall, she argued that she can influence the board majority only if she stays on their good side; and she can stay on their good side only if she avoids direct challenges. Jeff noted that, in view of the board’s unabated assholery, her strategy didn’t seem to be working very well. Hill seemed upset. It didn’t help that I, the notorious UnaBauer, was standing there. Frogue had probably told Hill that I am an operative for the Israeli Mossad. 

     Hill deserved to be taken to task, I suppose, but I had a sudden fit of chivalry and said, “Don’t worry, I’m not gonna give you a hard time.” She proceeded to vent in my direction. Soon, however, we settled into a pleasant conversation. 

     Some time after 7:00, we all sat down to dinner, and the speakers spoke. Schroeder seemed to find significance in the fact that Bob “I hate Loretta” Dornan and Loretta “I hate Bob” Sanchez had joined forces to help defeat the Froguester. He explained about the $40,000 we had collected. It really looks like we’re gonna succeed, he said. 

     Then Christopher “Smiley Face” Cox spoke. Briefly. He mentioned Tolerance and Inclusion. Evidently indifferent to the fact that a chunk of cash was stuck to his right cheek, he asserted, lamely, that we should remove Frogue, “not because he’s a bad man, but because we can do better.” Gee, if that’s our standard, surely we oughta get rid of this smiley Cox fella, too. 

     Schroeder then introduced Congressman Rohrabacher. One thing you can say about Rohrabacher, said Shroeder, is that he is “a man of principle.” Translation: Rohrabacher may be an asshole, but at least he isn’t a treacherous flesh-eating weasel. 

     True enough. But Rohrabacher quickly demonstrated that he is a dolt. The Republicans, you see, clearly had a game plan for the evening: to back the recall without being harsh towards the Froguester, who, after all, has his constituency. Rohrabacher followed this plan for a while; but then he slipped up, referring to Frogue as “some nut case,” to the amusement of most in the audience. But it must’ve steamed the Nazis lurking in the nearby bushes. 

     Yes, Nazis in the bushes. In the course of the evening, three persons known to be associated with white supremacist organizations were ferreted out of the bushes (and elsewhere) by security and asked to leave. One of them—George Kadar, an avowed white supremacist and Liberty Lobbyist who heads “Friends of Steven J. Frogue”—was caught with a video camera. According to two witnesses, Kadar’s camera sported a swastika. 

     Following Rohrabacher’s undistinguished blather, Shroeder told a story to illustrate how differences between people are relative or something. Recall manager Peggy Thomas then explained that 1700 people have donated to the cause. The recall effort isn’t just peopled by “disgruntled teachers,” she said. 

     Shroeder stated that the ADL’s Joyce Greenspan had a “significant announcement.” The ADL, it seemed, had decided to speak out against Frogue on a “national level.” 

B-1 Bob Dornan

     Afterward, some of us stayed and talked. I had a chance to speak with the Vine’s northern field correspondent, who updated me on some of President “Goo” Mathur’s micromanaging excesses. Mr. Goo, it seems, insists on elaborate hiring procedures, involving final presidential interviews, even in the case of relatively low-level classified positions. This, said the correspondent, is unprecedented and absurd. Recently, in the case of one such position, Goo announced that he would be interviewing the 1s , 2nd, 3rd, and 7th ranked candidates. Why the 7th but not the 4th, 5th, and 6th? Because that candidate (a nice person, actually) is a favorite of a Mathur croney, that’s why. 

     This sort of thing exposes the district to lawsuits, said the northern field correspondent. 

     As I left the Hyatt, I walked past a large room in which OCC was celebrating its 50th. Appropriately, the affair looked and sounded ridiculous; I think I saw farm animals grazing in there, but it was pretty dark, so maybe not. In the hallway, I encountered some kind of singles club for people with college degrees. They studied me as I walked by. I hotfooted it outa there.

SOCCCD Brown Act Declarations: September 1998 (Burgess, Deegan, Loeffler)

From the ‘Vine 10, October 6, 1998

THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR “REORGANIZATION” AND MATHUR’S APPOINTMENT--REVEALED IN LEGAL DECLARATIONS [complete and unexpurgated; underlining added. --The editor.]:

Concerns the BROWN ACT cases.

DECLARATION OF TERRENCE J. BURGESS

I, TERRENCE J. BURGESS, declare as follows:

1. I have served as the Vice President of instruction at Irvine Valley College since 1987 and I held this position during all times relevant to this matter. I am currently serving as the President of Chabot College in Hayward, California. I accepted this position in March of 1998.

2. In May of 1997, during an executive meeting of the three Vice Presidents and interim President Mathur, Mathur directed me to develop a plan for the reorganization of the administrative structure of the college. Mathur stated that he wanted me to develop a plan to institute a “Dean Model” for the College. Mathur stated that he wanted to have a plan available because there had been some discussion…among the Board [members] relevant to the shift to a “Dean Model” at Irvine Valley College. At that time, the college was divided into ten academic divisions that were administered by ten faculty chairpersons. This administrative structure was referred to as the “Chair Model”.

3. Specifically, Mathur directed me to develop two plans that would involve the elimination of the ten separate academic divisions and the elimination of the faculty chairpersons. He directed me to create one model consisting of four divisions and a second model consisting of five divisions. According to Mathur, a “Dean” rather than a faculty member would administer each of the divisions. Additionally, Mathur directed me to calculate the costs attendant to a Four-Dean Model and a Five-Dean Model as compared to the costs associated with the Chair Model. Mathur stated that he wanted to have a plan available as soon as possible.

4. At the May 13, 1997 public meeting of the Instructional Council, I placed the topic of reorganization on the agenda for public discussion. At that time, the Instructional Council consisted of the ten faculty chairpersons of each academic division and the other college administrators. I served as chairperson of the council. After discussion, the Council unanimously recommended that the planning process to develop and implement an administrative reorganization of this magnitude would require the advice and consultation with the faculty (Academic Senate), the classified staff (secretarial and other support staff), the administration, and the Associated Student Government. Due to the fact that the summer break began the following week, the Council voted unanimously to delay the discussion and planning process until the Fall of 1998 when the faculty, staff, and students returned from the summer recess. I carried the recommendation from the Council to interim President Mathur.

5. On June 3, 1997, I received a formal, written reprimand from interim President Mathur. As justification for the reprimand, interim President Mathur stated that the development of the plan to eliminate the ten academic divisions and create four or five new divisions was supposed to be developed in confidence. During a meeting with interim President Mathur, I stated that the initial directive to develop the administrative reorganization plans did not include the direction that the plans were confidential. At that time, I explained that the development of plans to reorganize the administrative structure at the college would require the consultation with the various constituencies that would be directly affected. Interim President Mathur reiterated that the plan was to have been developed in confidence and he refused to withdraw the reprimand.

6. Interim President Mathur then directed me to inform the instructional Council that he would accept their recommendation to delay the planning process relevant to the reorganization until the Fall of 1998 when the faculty, staff, and students returned from summer break. I subsequently informed the Council that interim President Mathur had accepted their recommendation to delay the planning of an administrative reorganization until the Fall of 1998.

7. Interim President Mathur directed me to confidentially continue the development of the plan to eliminate the ten academic divisions at the college and to create four or five new academic divisions. I subsequently complied with Mathur’s directives and confidentially developed the two administrative reorganization plans as well as the information comparing the costs of the two types of Dean Models with the costs of the Chair Model. I submitted the information to Mathur.

8. On July 7, 1997, interim President Mathur distributed a memorandum to all college personnel stating that the discussion pertaining to a Dean Model would be delayed until the Fall of 1998. Since I knew that Interim President Mathur’s public announcement to delay the planning process was deceptive [my emphasis], when I developed the administrative reorganization plans for the college, I modified the names of the academic divisions so that I could subsequently identify my work. For example, I deliberately modified the name of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences to the School of Social Sciences. I [deliberately] eliminated the School of Life Sciences And Technologies…as I submitted my plan to interim President Mathur on June 16,1997.

9. On July 16,1997, the Board Majority adopted the five-dean model that I had prepared at Mathur’s direction. President Mathur had submitted a copy of my plans to the Board Majority and they adopted the five-dean model without modification, including the deliberate changes I had made in the names of the academic divisions. [My emphasis.]

10. On Friday, September 5, 1997, Trustee David Lang contacted me by telephone at my office. He stated that he wanted to meet with me, Dean Pamela Deegan, and Vice President Robert Loeffler as soon as possible. We discussed the possibility of scheduling the meeting on Monday, September 8, 1997; however he stated that a meeting on September 8, 1997 would be “too late”. Trustee Lang stated that the meeting had to occur before that date. We arranged to meet that afternoon on September 5, 1997 at a restaurant in Irvine California. I contacted Dean Deegan and Vice President Loeffler and we met with Trustee Lang on September 5, 1997.

11. At the meeting on September 5, 1997, Trustee Lang stated that Trustee Williams, on behalf of the Board Majority, had contacted him regarding the appointment of Mathur as the president at Irvine Valley College. Trustee Williams stated that the Board Majority had agreed to appoint Mathur to the position of president at the September 8,1997 meeting. Trustee Lang stated that the Board Majority was concerned with the consequences attendant to a 4 to 3 vote for the Mathur appointment and that they were interested in reaching a compromise. Trustee Lang stated that the Board Majority promised to renew my administrative contract and the administrative contract of Dean Deegan if the Board Minority would agree to vote with the Majority on the Mathur appointment or abstain from voting against Mathur.

12. Dean Deegan and I refused to allow the renewal of our administrative contracts to be exchanged for the Board Minority’s promise to support (or not oppose) the Mathur appointment. We urged Trustee Lang to reject the compromise offered by the Board Majority.

13. On August 22, 1997, Chancellor Lombardi informed me that the Board Majority would not renew my administrative contract in June of 1998.

14. During the meeting on September 5, 1997, Trustee Lang also stated that Trustee Williams had promised to support Lang for Board Treasurer in the upcoming December 1997 elections in exchange for Lang’s assistance in obtaining a unanimous appointment for Mathur.

15. On Saturday, September 6, 1997, I received a telephone call from Chancellor Robert A. Lombardi. Our refusal on September 5, 1997 of the compromise or promise offered by the Board Majority was communicated to him and during our 30-minute conversation Chancellor Lombardi tried to persuade me to accept the Board Majority’s compromise. On behalf of Dean Deegan and myself I refused to accept the compromise. I subsequently contacted Dean Deegan by telephone on Saturday, September 6, 1997 to discuss the contents of my discussion with Chancellor Lombardi. Dean Deegan again reiterated her refusal of the compromise offered by the Board Majority.

16. The Board Majority. did not renew my administrative contract on February 17,1998.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 11th day of September, 1998 at Irvine, California.

(Signed)

Terrence J. Burgess

DECLARATION OF PAMELA F. DEEGAN

I, PAMELA F. DEEGAN, declare as follows:

1. I have served as the Dean of Instructional Programs at Irvine Valley College since September 1993 and I held this position during all times relevant to this matter. I am currently serving as the Dean of Instructional Services at Santiago Canyon College in Orange, California. I accepted this position in July of 1998.

2. On Friday, September 5, 1997, Vice President Burgess contacted me to arrange a meeting with Trustee Lang. Vice President Burgess stated that the meeting had to take place before Monday, September 8, 1997. I agreed to meet with them on September 5, 1997 at a restaurant in Irvine, California.

3. At the meeting on September 5, 1997, Trustee Lang stated that Trustee Williams, on behalf of the Board Majority, had contacted him regarding the appointment of Mathur as the president of Irvine Valley College. Trustee Lang stated that the Board Majority had agreed to appoint Mathur to the position of president at the September 8, 1997 meeting. Trustee Lang stated that the Board Majority was concerned with the consequences attendant to a 4 to 3 vote for the Mathur appointment and that they were interested in reaching a compromise. Trustee Lang stated that the Board Majority had promised to renew my administrative contract and the contract of Vice President Burgess if the Board Minority would agree to vote with the Majority on the Mathur appointment or abstain from voting against Mathur.

4. Vice President Burgess and I refused to allow the renewal of our administrative contracts to be exchanged for the Board Minority’s support of the Mathur appointment. We urged Trustee Lang to reject the compromise offered by the Board Majority.

5. During the meeting on September 5, 1997, Trustee Lang also stated that Trustee Williams had promised to support Lang for Board Treasurer in the upcoming December 1997 elections in exchange for Lang’s assistance in obtaining a unanimous appointment for Mathur.

6. On Saturday, September 5, 1997, I received a telephone call from Vice President Burgess. He informed me that Chancellor Lombardi had contacted him and had attempted to persuade us to accept the compromise offered by the Board Majority. I told Vice President Burgess that I was not interested in the compromise offered by the Board Majority and that I was resolute in my decision.

7. On November 17, 1997, Chancellor Lombardi informed me that the Board Majority was considering non-renewal of my administrative contract in June of 1998.

8. In March of 1998, I was reassigned from the Dean of Instructional Programs at Irvine Valley College to Director of Emeritus at Saddleback College.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 17[th] day of September, 1998 at Irvine, California.

(Signed)

Pamela F. Deegan

DECLARATION OF ROBERT D. LOEFFLER

I, ROBERT D. LOEFFLER, declare as follows:

1. I have served as the Vice President of Business Services at Irvine Valley College since 1988 and I held this position during all times relevant to this matter. I am currently serving as the Vice President of Business Services at Chabot College in Hayward, California. I accepted this position in August of 1998.

2. In May of 1997, during an executive meeting of the three Vice Presidents and interim President Mathur, Mathur directed Vice President Burgess to develop a plan for the reorganization of the administrative structure of the college. Mathur stated that he wanted Vice President Burgess to develop a plan to institute a “Dean Model” for the College. Mathur stated that he wanted to have a plan available because there had been some discussion among the Board relevant to the shift to a “Dean Model” at Irvine Valley College.

3. Specifically, Mathur directed Vice President Burgess to develop two plans that would involve the elimination of the ten separate academic divisions and the elimination of the faculty chairpersons. He directed Vice President Burgess to create one model consisting of four academic divisions and a second model consisting of five academic divisions. According to Mathur, a “Dean” rather than a faculty member would administer each of the divisions. Additionally, Mathur directed Vice President Burgess to calculate the cost attendant to a Four-Dean Model and a Five-Dean Model as compared to the costs associated with the Chair Model. Mathur stated that he wanted to have a plan available as soon as possible.

4. On Friday, September 5, 1997, Vice President Burgess contacted me to arrange a meeting with Trustee Lang. Vice President Burgess stated that the meeting had to take place before Monday, September 8, 1997. I agreed to meet with them on September 5, 1997 at a restaurant in Irvine, California.

5. At the meeting on September 5, 1997, Trustee Lang stated that Trustee Williams, on behalf of the Board Majority, had contacted him regarding the appointment of Mathur as the president of Irvine Valley College. Trustee Lang stated that the Board Majority had agreed to appoint Mathur to the position of president at the September 8, 1997 meeting. Trustee Lang stated that the Board Majority was concerned with the consequences attendant to a 4 to 3 vote for the Mathur appointment and that they were interested in reaching a compromise. Trustee Lang stated that the Board Majority had promised to renew administrative contracts of Vice President Burgess and Dean Deegan if the Board Minority would agree to vote with the Majority on the Mathur appointment or abstain from voting against Mathur.

6. Vice President Burgess and Dean Deegan refused the deal offered by Trustee Williams on behalf of the Board Majority.

7. During the meeting on September 5, 1997, Trustee Lang also stated that Trustee Williams had promised to support Lang for Board Treasurer in the upcoming December 1997 elections in exchange for Lang’s assistance in obtaining a unanimous appointment for Mathur.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 8th day of September, 1998 at Irvine, California.

(Signed)

Robert D. Loeffler

Williams speaks of ivory castles; The great "armed cops" debate; Accreditation reports; Frogueian lecture; Lee Walker

Dave Lang sharing the spotlight with convicted felon Mike Carona

From the ‘Vine (#7), 9/16/98
It is possible that this is the penultimate draft, not the draft ultimately published.

BOARD MEETING, SEPT. 14

by Chunk Wheeler

When I arrived at 6:55, about thirty-five people were waiting for Library 105’s door to open, a number that grew somewhat during the next 50 minutes. As I waited, I spoke with reporters and friends, but I kept noticing Lee Walker skulking in the background. At one point, the Walk Man’s face suddenly appeared from afar through an opening in the crowd; he seemed to be studying my face, I knew not why. Did I mention that he looks like a cross between Sleepy and Grumpy, two of the seven dwarfs? If there is a dwarf named “Incredibly Stupid,” he looks like that one, too.

Someone told me that state law requires that board meetings start on time. In fact, as I recall, the last two meetings started more than an hour late. On this night, the meeting started about 50 minutes late. But what’s a little law-breaking to a guy like John “let’s make a deal” Williams? Nuttin’.

At long last, the door opened, and we rushed in. Leaders of the classified union were immediately informed (on the sly) that their contract had been approved. Good news! (Next, the contract must be ratified by classified union members. That is expected to occur.) This means, among other things, that some senior classified employees will soon be leaving us, opting for the ol’ golden handshake. We’ll lose some more good people, but you can’t blame them for wanting to jump the unhappy Ship of Goo.

Lang and God:

The meeting opened with the usual rituals. Trustee Lang led the prayer, a rite that, in recent months, has become an occasion for political point-making. You’ll recall that, some months ago, Frogue, stinging from Joan Hueter’s then-recent critical remarks in the press concerning the odious talent-repelling board majority, noted in his “prayer” that people with beams in their eyes should not point out the motes in others’ eyes. He didn’t explain to God what Joan’s “beam” was supposed to be.

In Lang’s prayer, he told God that he hoped that board members would listen to the advice of their advisors—a signal that, once again, board members were about to ignore the advice of their advisors.

The board announced their closed session decisions. Don Busche was made VP of Instruction at Saddleback. The decision was unanimous. The CSEA “tentative” agreement was approved, again, unanimously. Etc.

Accreditation reports:

The accreditation reports were presented. Since Ray Chandos teaches (six students!) on Monday nights, Raghu was compelled to present IVC’s report. Goo mentioned that it includes minority reports for standards 5 and 10. The accreditation team, said Goo, will be visiting both campuses on the 27th, 28th, and 30th of October.

During the immediately subsequent “public comments,” Bob Cosgrove explained that he had asked for a copy of IVC’s accreditation report, but was told that no copies were available. They have not been made available to IVC faculty either, he said. The crafty Goo chose that moment to walk up to the podium and hand Bob a copy of the report. Very funny. (It must be acknowledged that Mr. Goo has a sense of humor of sorts.) What Goo did not explain amid the laughter, however, is that the copy he handed Cosgrove did not include the minority reports. (Copies circulated among standards chairs the next day sported the same deficit.)

Enrollment lies: [in the hard copy of this ‘Vine, the word “distortions” is used]

An early agenda item was the presentation of the “SOCCCD Census Enrollment Report.” Chancellor Sampson explained that this information is very important. Then the board majoritarians launched into an effort to cast the best possible light on IVC’s curious drop in enrollments. (Saddleback’s enrollments are up. See chart.) Their gambit: to attribute the IVC enrollments drop simply to the transfer of the Emeritus program from IVC to Saddleback.

This ploy was effectively ruined, however, by Dave Lang and Rich Zucker’s questions and comments. Thanks to Lang and Zucker, it was revealed that, even apart from the Emeritus program transfer, our enrollments at IVC are down, though only very slightly--about half a percentage point. As Raghu put it, enrollments are “flat,” more or less. But, given that we budgeted for a 3% increase in enrollments--an increase that did not occur--we’re in the hole. Again, it took some doing to bring these facts to light, for the board majority seemed determined to leave a very different impression of the situation.

Subtle tensions between the two presidents seemed evident during the discussion of the Emeritus Institute transfer. President Bullock suggested that the transfer “helped the district; it didn’t hurt IVC.” Raghu took the opposing view.

Dorothy Fortune, being a complete idiot, demanded an opportunity to inspect “the waiting lists.” “Why won’t you people show us the waiting lists!” she seemed to say.

The board discussed its “goals and objectives.” Everyone seemed to agree that the board should have some and that its members should meet to discuss the matter.

Frogue exhibits paranoia:

Frogue had a beef about the lack of “communication” between the Trustees and administration, which seemed to stem from his receipt of the meeting’s agenda on Friday rather than earlier in the week. In these and other comments during the evening, the Froguester rehearsed his favorite paranoid themes: the duplicity of bureaucrats, the untrustworthiness of the press, etc.

Anyone who attended the December 7, 1997, board meeting knows that Frogue considers himself an expert on information flow—or, rather, non-flow—within bureaucracies. During that meeting, which was devoted to discussing possible further tweakage of the district’s administrative structure, Frogue lectured his colleagues. He said:

Information that’s inconvenient; information that’s uncomfortable; information that might be embarrassing—can suddenly disappear...New information can also be created at any step of the way—to cover up things. And then, by the time it gets here to the board, which is this filter, it has to make decisions. I mean, that’s why...we make decisions that people don’t like, that people are uncomfortable with, unfamiliar with—because we’re trying to operate within this system, and sometimes we get information and we check it out and it’s not right. It’s not right...It’s like attacking a 500 pound blob of jello with a scalpel.

Frogue ended his remarkably inane lecture by saying, “Is it reliable? Is it truthful?...That’s the problem with everything...believing the daily newspaper and dealing with the information you get...My God, we’d better all be aware of it because it’s applicable in so many ways. I’ll sit down.”

Give us our new guns:

The “gun” issue emerged once again. At the last board meeting, campus police chiefs Parmer and Romas asked for money to replace the police forces’ old and relatively unsafe 38s with au courant 9mm weapons. Their presentation established that, if campus cops are going to have guns, then they should be new 9mm jobs, not the old 38s. Trustee Fortune--who, before she decided to call herself a “fiscal conservative,” was active in the Democratic party--emerged that night as a strong proponent of defanging campus cops. (It turns out that most community college cops are gunless; indeed, ours is the only district in OC that arms its cops.) As I recall, then-Chancellor Hodge and Dave Lang agreed with Fortune, which must have been painful for them. In the end, the cops went home without their new guns, but they managed to keep their old ones.

Surprisingly, the issue was back on the agenda on the 14th. Fortune once again spoke to the issue. In her remarks, she demonstrated her uncanny knack for really pissing people off, for, in effect, she called Parmer and Romas liars. You see, after the October board meeting, she called up the Orange County Sheriff’s Dept. and talked to a “fellow” there. She asked him about the safety of 38s.”They’re safe weapons,” said the fellow. (Of course, Parmer and Romas didn’t exactly say that 38s are unsafe; they said that 9mms are relatively safe.) The Fortunate One concluded that she had been lied to or misled by Parmer and Romas. “That’s what you get when you only listen to people with a special interest,” she added. “Let’s spend the money on students, not on guns,” concluded Dot.

In response, chief Romas acknowledged that 38s are not unsafe; but the district’s 38s are old, he said. Lang jumped in to express both his respect for Romas/Parmer and his inclination to disarm them. “Why are we the exception among community college districts in the area?” asked Lang. Frogue opined that it is unwise to leave cops unarmed. Williams, finally finding a topic he cares about, stated that it is a “travesty” to suggest not arming police officers. Apparently addressing Mr. Lang, he said, “Get real.” “Stop living in an ivory castle.” (Yes, an ivory castle.)

Lorch noted that the presence of guns is a deterrent. Fortune shot back by suggesting that the worst thing that happens on our campuses is the theft of car radios (well, not quite), so the cops don’t need guns. “Even the radicals [i.e., Frogue’s racist friends and their equally polite JDL adversaries] who sometimes come to our board meetings aren’t that bad,” she said. At that moment, I felt Dave Lang’s pain.

Student trustee Marie Hill noted that she has seen men removing their shirts and revealing tatoos on campus. “Gang members,” she said. So cops gotta have guns.

Frogue explained that, if only people knew the details--details, he implied, that were suppressed by the press!--of the Lorches’ fabled encounter with violence (?), they would understand the need to arm campus cops. (Huh?) Idiotically, Lorch explained that only someone who has experienced what she experienced knows whether campus cops should have guns. “You don’t know until you’ve experienced this yourself,” she said, thereby marking the nadir of the evening.

And so on.

Toxic waste:

After a break, we heard about a lawsuit against the district filed by Casmalia Resources Site. Evidently, the firm took our hazardous waste and buried it at its site. Then the EPA showed up and told Casmalia that they’ll have to spend a million bucks cleaning up. Naturally, Casmalia is now trying to get the money from its clients, including us. Frogue said something, but it was stupifying, and so I have no clear memory of it.

Trustee misconduct?

There was some delightful tension in the air during the trustees’ discussion of “mileage reimbursement”--money to defray travelling costs to conferences and the like. Lang alluded to Dot’s going places she shouldn’t oughta go to. Evidently, the district’s director of public information (DPI), Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli, has also been going to forbidden zones. No details were mentioned. Williams made a big show of support for Zanelli, who, he declared, is doing a good job. The DPI should be “everywhere,” he said, and that’s just where she is.

In the course of Fortune’s cryptic and defensive remarks, she asserted that “You get your money’s worth with me,” which produced audible groans throughout the room.

At some point, Dot and Marcia seemed to be shouting at each other, but I couldn’t make out what they were saying. Marie Hill, who kept looking at Frogue for reassurance or cues, put in her two cents, which, as usual, turned out to be worth two cents. (She’s one of those people who talks just to hear herself talk. Also, she has perfected an “evil eye.” Very impressive.)

Lariat bombshell:

During the second round of public comments, Christian Barrera, former editor in chief (and current assistant editor in chief) of the Lariat, read a statement in which, evidently on behalf of his colleagues at the paper, he requested Lee Walker’s removal as advisor. As advisor, Walker has continually overstepped his bounds and violated first Amendment rights, said Barrera, an assessment, he added, that is shared by the last five editors in chief, including the current one. Barrera pleaded with the board to “open their ears” and take action. Specific details, he said, would soon be forwarded.

You will recall that Walker, the croniest of union cronies, became the Lariat’s advisor starting in the summer of ’97. At the time, the paper had been very critical of the faculty union’s tactics, especially during the ’96 election season. Few had any doubts about his motives when Walker sought to bump then-advisor Kathleen Dorantes from her position, which she had held successfully for two years. Dorantes’ then-dean, Dan Rivas, would not participate in Dorantes’ removal, and so, under pressure from the board, then-president Doffoney did the dirty work.

In October of 1997, the Saddleback College Lariette, an underground internet “newspaper” put out by a former Lariat staffer, explained that

Lariat staff members are quite certain the appointment of Walker as the new adviser is [not] coincidental, for he is a member of the Faculty Association and has represented it at board meetings. His political ties with the Faculty Association and Board of Trustees are strong, and he has been an outspoken advocate for them on a number of occasions. For a person so closely tied to the board and the Faculty Association to be appointed the new adviser of its most immediate and threatening critic is most definitely a conflict of interest. Certainly the issues of prior restraint and censorship become immediate factors, for Walker knows the content of the paper before it is published. Should news topics arise targeting the Faculty Association, the Board of Trustees or Walker himself, he would be privileged to the information two weeks before public release. Walker has already proven he cannot separate his politics from his profession. He has interfered with the gathering of news by Lariat reporters when he interrupted an interview conducted by the Lariat campus editor, so he could spout his own personal opinions after the Sept. 8 board meeting. He has made an effort to suppress news, an issue of prior restraint, by attempting to convince current Editor in Chief Ted Martin not to run a story about Dorantes’ dismissal. He requested his picture be removed from the article about himself and Dorantes, an issue of prior review, for he found it unflattering and did not want his image published with the article. However, under any other circumstance, the subject of a story does not personally determine the accompanying photograph, most notably exemplified in our previous coverage of a sexual harassment suit filed against a professor on campus....

Reports:

The trustees’ reports were largely unremarkable. Naturally, everyone made a point of welcoming chancellor Sampson.

Frogue remarked that “There’s nothing like the start of a new school year.” It’s going to be another interesting year, he said. You bet, Recall Boy.

Lorch, borrowing one of Frogue’s themes, read a statement in which she yammered about the trustees’ lack of adequate information. Gotta measure performance; gotta get info; etc.

Dot Fortune addressed proponents of the Recall, reminding them of the potential cost to the district. But, as I said earlier, she’s an idiot.

John “College Boy” Williams praised the Lariat for its “welcome back” issue. Have you seen it? It’s an embarrassment. In the course of 43 pages, it refers to not one issue. The “article” on page 9 is typical: “Saddleback: People Who Care.” Perhaps it’s one of those joke issues.

ASIVC announced that the students are pressing for more recycling on campus and a unified grade-posting policy. Wow. Maybe they should be running things.

The Saddleback Academic Senate read a resolution to the effect that Richard McCullough did a great job as president and is a great guy.

Rich Zucker of the IVC Academic Senate announced that there is at long last a nominee for senate president. (He wisely refrained from identifying the fellow.) Further, Jan Horn and Priscilla Ross have agreed to co-chair the Committee on Courses, and so, again, at long last, the curriculum process can go forward. Rich invited Chancellor Sampson to meet with senate officers and then, ultimately, with the senate. Sampson seemed agreeable.

The Faculty Association had no report (and no one to give it, it seemed).

During his report, Mr. Goo flashed a soccer trophy. I hope he doesn’t think it’s his. Do you suppose he’ll put it in that stupid trophy box?

The new chancellor steps out:

Eventually, a discussion ensued concerning the replacements of Nick Kremer, Bob Loeffler, and others. Chancellor Sampson, noting that the board seemed to be down-grading some positions-e.g., Loeffler’s—for the sake of economy, seemed to express discomfort with the board’s haphazard and case-by-case approach to individual administrative positions. He seemed to say that it would be better to make adjustments in positions (and salaries, etc.) in a systematic way that reflected some particular philosophy and goal. Accordingly, many changes should be made at one time.

One shouldn’t study administrative positions one at a time, he said. Rather, one should study them in relation to each other. He repeated that he advocated making adjustments to the management structure all at once based on an overview and a particular philosophy or set of principles.

Such talk inspired defensiveness in the board majority. Frogue asserted that, faced with massive bureaucratic inefficiency, the board was forced to take the
esting year, he said. You bet, Recall Boy.

Lorch, borrowing one of Frogue’s themes, read a statement in which she yammered about the trustees’ lack of adequate information. Gotta measure performance; gotta get info; etc.

Dot Fortune addressed proponents of the Recall, reminding them of the potential cost to the district. But, as I said earlier, she’s an idiot.

John “College Boy” Williams praised the Lariat for its “welcome back” issue. Have you seen it? It’s an embarrassment. In the course of 43 pages, it refers to not one issue. The “article” on page 9 is typical: “Saddleback: People Who Care.” Perhaps it’s one of those joke issues.

ASIVC announced that the students are pressing for more recycling on campus and a unified grade-posting policy. Wow. Maybe they should be running things.

The Saddleback Academic Senate read a resolution to the effect that Richard McCullough did a great job as president and is a great guy.

Rich Zucker of the IVC Academic Senate announced that there is at long last a nominee for senate president. (He wisely refrained from identifying the fellow.) Further, said Rich, Jan Horn and Priscilla Ross have agreed to co-chair the Committee on Courses, and so, again, at long last, the curriculum process can go forward. Rich invited Chancellor Sampson to meet with senate officers and then, ultimately, with the senate. Sampson seemed agreeable.

The Faculty Association had no report (and no one to give it, it seemed).

During his report, Mr. Goo flashed a soccer trophy. I hope he doesn’t think it’s his. --CW

Mr. Goo's brown bag lunch, 9/98; President's welcome address

MR. GOO'S FREE LUNCH 

by Chunk Wheeler 

The 'Vine: September 8, 1998 

     Today (Sept. 3), a friend told me that Mr. Goo had just hosted one of his lunch events. I expressed surprise and explained that I had heard nothing about it. “The announcement is in your e-mail,” she said, grumpily. 

     I looked. I had received no such announcement. 

     I wondered why. As you know, Mr. Goo’s history with special lunches has been disastrous. Last November, he scheduled a “Brown Bag Lunch” that managed to attract only George McCrory, who showed up with a banana. Under the circumstances, an ordinary human being would immediately drop the matter and never speak of it again, but not our Goo. 

     A few weeks later, in the execrable Laser Beam, he expressed his gratitude to “everyone” who participated in this “very successful” event. 

     I wonder what it’s like to be able to just lie like that? 

     You’d think a man who received a vote of confidence from only 24% of the full-time faculty would know better than to host “lunches” of this sort. Not so. My friend reported that Thursday’s event was also an abject failure, despite the lure of a free hot lunch. 

     Later, when I visited my office, I found a note that had been slipped under my door. It said: “For your info…there were only 4 people at lunch today: Raghu, Glenn, Bob [M]+ ? Raghu had ordered lunch for the first 20 people.” 

     No doubt, in a few days, we will read an enthusiastic account of the affair in the Laser Beam. “Many thanks,” it will say, “to everyone who came to join us on the 3rd to make the event such a great success!”

     I’m told that Mr. Goo’s theme for the lunch was “frivolity” or “fun” or some such thing. Evidently, he had stolen the idea from one of State Chancellor Nussbaum’s communications. Well, if you’re gonna lie, you may as well steal, too, I guess.

 

Who was that charming man? 

     As I said, I did not get an invitation. A mere oversight? Maybe. On the other hand, it is possible that Mr. Goo sought to prevent me from attending in order to avoid a repetition of the unpleasantness that occurred on August 18 during the “President’s Welcome Address.” 

     Perhaps you missed it. At the beginning of that session, Mr. Goo gave an address in which he urged “unity.” Now, to my mind, it just won’t do for a despot to stand before his victims, calling for unity and harmony, and so I felt that someone needed to say something. I would have waited until the Q&A period to express my indignation, but—surprise, surprise!—Q&A was placed dead last on the agenda, and you know what that means. 

     At last January’s presidential “Welcome,” Mr. Goo employed a similar gimmick: when, during that session, I asked him why a Q&A was not scheduled, he explained that there would be time for questions at the end of the session. Naturally, time ran out, and, once again, Mr. Goo avoided having to confront his critics in public. 

     On the 18th, near the end of Goo’s remarks, I stood up and made my objections. I said something like this: “How can you ask for unity, harmony, healing, and all the rest when you attack your own faculty, accusing them of hate crimes? You made that charge [at a board meeting in May] without providing any evidence. Will you apologize?” 

     In the course of this remark, it became apparent that I had few allies in the room and that, indeed, Mr. Goo’s supporters—all seven of them—were sitting together immediately behind me, holding hands and grunting. Exhibiting uncommon unity of purpose—and more courage than usual--this group shouted and jeered as I spoke. (Perhaps they were not alone—I was at the front of the room and was thus in a poor position to perceive what was happening.) I recall Walter F (or was it Larry O?) repeatedly shouting, “Read the ‘Vine!”, a sentiment so bizarre that I almost turned around to ask him what the hell it meant.

     Given these ugly developments, a prudent man would have retreated immediately. I, however, stood there, stubbornly demanding answers to my questions amid the jeers. Goo, who seemed to wriggle at the podium like a bug pinned to a board, sought to cut me off by introducing Glenn, who then walked to the front of the room. He received applause! Undeterred, I said something like, “Gee, Glenn, are you gonna cop to your overscheduling error? Are you gonna explain that, though summer enrollments were up by 14%, the schedule had been expanded by 24%!” 

     The jeers continued. Glenn proceeded to speak. Finally, I sat down. Later, a friend suggested that I had done what no one else had been able to do: make Raghu and Glenn seem sympathetic, at least to the uninformed in the room. I knew he was right. Ouch. 

     I should add that, in the end, the “President’s Welcome” session ended without the scheduled Q&A. Further, as far as I know, Glenn has yet to acknowledge his error, which cost the college over $350,000—by his own accounting. 

The Good Ship Lollipop 

     Also during the session, Tom Mucciaro’s former Scoutmaster, David Hood, gave an address. (Evidently, Tom’s mom was instrumental in recently reuniting Scoutmaster and scout.) Hood’s talk, entitled “Shared Governance,” was intelligent, well-meaning, and even literate. Unfortunately, it was marred by a failure to appreciate two crucial facts about our college: first, that our president is a despot, and, second, that our board is dominated by four stupid thugs. It was as though we were crew members of the H.M.S Bounty being forced to listen to an address intended for crewmembers of the Good Ship Lollipop: “Now, you faculty! Stop being mean to administrators! And you administrators, why won’t you be nice?” Such advice, offered to a faculty that, after years of governmental concord, now confronts a regime that has eliminated shared governance entirely and that routinely violates state laws and district procedures, is insulting. 

     It wasn’t a complete disaster, though. I understand that Tom finally got his “Citizenship” merit badge for putting this together. 

Gooian inanities 

     Speaking of lollipops, at the presidential “Welcome,” Mr. Goo distributed a handout that presented a brief statement of a philosophy concerning “attitude.” It said 

     “Attitude is more important than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do.” (Education, shmeducation—it’s attitude that really matters! Wait till I tell my students!) 

     “We cannot change…the fact that people will act in a certain way.” (I guess nuclear disarmament is out of the question then.) “We cannot change the inevitable.” (Hmmm. Seems sensible, given that “inevitable” means “cannot be avoided.” Among educated people, vacuous statements of this kind are called “tautologies.”) 

 

Of course, were Mr. Goo and his advisors literate, they would know that comparatively sophisticated and insightful doctrines about “attitude” have been developed by various thinkers and traditions for thousands of years. Consequently, Mr. Goo would not embarrass himself—and us—by spouting witless and sophomoric New Age claptrap about “attitude.” 

     Mr. Goo has a real weakness for this dreck. You’ll recall that, back in March, he distributed a document on “civility” that recommended the following: 

:-) Give yourself one compliment per day. 

:-) Have a “Brag Buddy” to share successes with. 

:-) Say to yourself at least ten times per day, 

“I love myself” or “I like myself.” 

:-) Make a photo copy of the palm of your hand and give yourself a “pat on the back.” 

 Wow. In a more reasonable world, our president would be ousted for this alone. --CW