Unlikely Allies

“The SOCCCD Board’s unlikely secret allies”
Orange County Register, October 31, 1998


KIMBERLY KINDY

Conservative trustees who rail against teachers unions get crucial help from union-funded PACs

Donald Wagner is campaigning as a fiscal conservative for a seat on the South Orange County Community College board.

He is supported by the Education Alliance, a group that advocates “back-to-basics” education and frequently battles teachers unions for control over school boards. He fought for Proposition 226, a ballot measure that would have restricted unions’ ability to use members’ dues for political campaigns.

He also has an unusual—and largely unknown—ally: the local chapter of the California Teachers Association.

Political action committees funded by the union secretly paid for campaign fliers for Wagner and fellow candidate Nancy Padberg.

The same thing happened in 1996, when three candidates promoted in a campaign mailer paid for by the union won seats.

Even candidates supported by the union said they were unaware of the campaign help.

“The teachers union? “ Wagner said. “The California Teachers Association is overwhelmingly liberal. I would seriously doubt they would support a conservative Republican like me. I was generally pleased to get the support ... but I think it’s strange that it’s the union.”

Union leaders have not given a public explanation for their decisions. They have refused to discuss either campaign with their rank and file, even though members’ dues financed the fliers.

Critics of the union and the board majority say the reasons have become obvious. They point to the following:

A five-year contract, negotiated after the 1996 election, that boosted teachers’ salaries at an estimated annual cost of $5 million when the district was on the state’s fiscal watch list--and when faculty pay was already the highest of any community college in the state.

Administrators who had made enemies with the union say they have been removed, or forced out, by the board majority and replaced with union loyalists. Since 1996, eight administrators have left the district and five have returned to the classroom, with several saying they fled a hostile work environment that began after the election.

The union’s political consultant for the 1996 campaign flier that helped elect three members of the board majority [Pam Zanelli] now works as the district’s spokeswoman at roughly $5,000 a month.

“Why is the faculty union giving money to endorse candidates who are appealing to a segment of the voter population who is opposed to unions? “ said Irvine Valley College professor and union member Brenda Borron. “It’s simple. It’s the buying and selling of board members. They will do anything to keep control of the board majority.”

Union President Sherry Miller White has refused comment to reporters and to her own members about either campaign.

Board President John Williams did not agree to an interview, but he has said at public meetings that he and the board majority are not controlled by the union, nor is the union controlled by the board.

The union chapter’s bylaws give all decision-making authority for campaigning to the current president and any past union presidents who wish to serve on the election committee. That group doesn’t have to tell members what it’s doing.

Campaign disclosure forms filed with the county registrar of voters show teachers union funds going to four political action committees since 1996 to pay for two fliers.

Nowhere on either mailer—which were sent out en masse to south Orange County homes—is the union mentioned. Only the political action committees’ names, such as Taxpayers for Responsible Educators, appear.

Saddleback College English Professor Robert Kopfstein doesn’t believe the union should play any campaign role.

“My advice has been to get out of the election business altogether,” said Kopfstein, the treasurer for one of the union’s political action committees, which indirectly helped fund the latest mass mailer. “It’s too difficult to get consensus from members on candidates. And a hit piece—even if it were truthful—it’s not the kind of thing faculty has much stomach for.”

Since the election of the current board majority, the district has been deeply divided.

Thursday, two outside accrediting teams left Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges, saying they were “stunned” by “divisiveness and disharmony” they found. Accreditation is necessary so that students can qualify for federal financial aid and have their credits accepted by universities.

Members of the board majority say a group of professors is stirring up all the trouble—teachers who’ve lost power and money as a result of reforms the board has passed. [Note: these “professors” began stirring up “trouble”--Brown Act lawsuits, bad press, etc.--months before the loss of any Chairships and reassigned time.]

None of the four members agreed to an interview, but in a prepared statement Dorothy Fortune said this week that 28 administrators are now doing work that was assigned to 46 in 1996.

In the process, many faculty members who held quasi-administrative duties have returned to the classroom. She estimates the savings at $1.8 million.

“Employees who previously benefited from past wasteful district practices have bitterly contested reform,” Fortune said.

But some rank-and-file members say the discord has been caused by the board majority, who were elected with the help of the union leadership. And this is why they view any new union campaign efforts with suspicion—especially since it again has been done in secret.

In 1996, the union paid $40,000 to mail out a flier that read: “Stop Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates Who Want to TAKE CONTROL of Your Tax Dollars and Your Community Colleges” and supported three members of the current board majority.

This campaign, the union has financed a mass mailing supporting Padberg and Wagner that uses another hot-button issue—the proposed El Toro airport—to try to get people to the polls.

Both in 1996 and this election year, professors say they are unwillingly helping people with ties to groups that the CTA typically fights.

“I’d love to hear union leaders’ reasoning for supporting these two candidates,” said Roni Lebauer, a Saddleback College professor.

“They are both endorsed by extremely conservative groups that are anti-union.”

For example, board President John Williams was backed by the teachers union and elected in 1996. He has strong ties to members of the Education Alliance, which supports opponents of union-backed candidates.

CTA leader David Lebow, who was called into the south Orange County local to investigate the 1996 campaign, said union leaders may have chosen some unconventional candidates, but they had their reasons.

“The group they didn’t endorse was interested in reducing their salaries. They really believed it was a threat to their very existence,” said Lebow about the 1996 campaign. “But the (same-sex marriage) flier was bad. ... It was really bad. They did it because they believed they had to win that election.”

This time, Lebow said, CTA headquarters will once again not monitor the local chapter’s candidate endorsements. Instead, Lebow said, union officials are handling a mail vote on a proposed chapter bylaw change that would prevent any secret endorsements in the 2000 campaign.

The new bylaws, if passed, would require the current campaign committee to share its plans with a large panel of teachers, which would include an elected representative from each department at the two colleges. The panel would then vote on the campaign committee’s recommendations, and members would be informed of the final decisions.

But Saddleback College Professor Cheryl Altman said that many teachers are cynical about the effect of a bylaw change.

“I don’t have any confidence left,” Altman said. “Many of the old bylaws were never followed. You have to have leaders who are willing to follow the rules.”

Board's Unlikely Secret Allies

BOARD’S UNLIKELY SECRET ALLIES

COLLEGES: Conservative trustees who rail against teachers unions get crucial help from union-funded PACs.

October 31, 1998

KIMBERLY KINDY

The Orange County Register

Donald Wagner is campaigning as a fiscal conservative for a seat on the South Orange County Community College board.

He is supported by the Education Alliance, a group that advocates “back-to-basics” education and frequently battles teachers unions for control over school boards. He fought for Proposition 226, a ballot measure that would have restricted unions’ ability to use members’ dues for political campaigns.

         He also has an unusual—and largely unknown—ally: the local chapter of the California Teachers Association.

         Political action committees funded by the union secretly paid for campaign fliers for Wagner and fellow candidate Nancy Padberg.

         The same thing happened in 1996, when three candidates promoted in a campaign mailer paid for by the union won seats.

         Even candidates supported by the union said they were unaware of the campaign help.

         “The teachers union? “ Wagner said. “The California Teachers Association is overwhelmingly liberal. I would seriously doubt they would support a conservative Republican like me. I was generally pleased to get the support ... but I think it’s strange that it’s the union.”

         Union leaders have not given a public explanation for their decisions. They have refused to discuss either campaign with their rank and file, even though members’ dues financed the fliers.

         Critics of the union and the board majority say the reasons have become obvious. They point to the following:

         A five-year contract, negotiated after the 1996 election, that boosted teachers’ salaries at an estimated annual cost of $5 million when the district was on the state’s fiscal watch list--and when faculty pay was already the highest of any community college in the state.

         Administrators who had made enemies with the union say they have been removed, or forced out, by the board majority and replaced with union loyalists. Since 1996, eight administrators have left the district and five have returned to the classroom, with several saying they fled a hostile work environment that began after the election.

         The union’s political consultant for the 1996 campaign flier that helped elect three members of the board majority [Pam Zanelli] now works as the district’s spokeswoman at roughly $5,000 a month.

         “Why is the faculty union giving money to endorse candidates who are appealing to a segment of the voter population who is opposed to unions? “ said Irvine Valley College professor and union member Brenda Borron. “It’s simple. It’s the buying and selling of board members. They will do anything to keep control of the board majority.”

         Union President Sherry Miller White has refused comment to reporters and to her own members about either campaign.

         Board President John Williams did not agree to an interview, but he has said at public meetings that he and the board majority are not controlled by the union, nor is the union controlled by the board.

         The union chapter’s bylaws give all decision-making authority for campaigning to the current president and any past union presidents who wish to serve on the election committee. That group doesn’t have to tell members what it’s doing.

         Campaign disclosure forms filed with the county registrar of voters show teachers union funds going to four political action committees since 1996 to pay for two fliers.

         Nowhere on either mailer—which were sent out en masse to south Orange County homes—is the union mentioned. Only the political action committees’ names, such as Taxpayers for Responsible Educators, appear.

         Saddleback College English Professor Robert Kopfstein doesn’t believe the union should play any campaign role.

         “My advice has been to get out of the election business altogether,” said Kopfstein, the treasurer for one of the union’s political action committees, which indirectly helped fund the latest mass mailer. “It’s too difficult to get consensus from members on candidates. And a hit piece—even if it were truthful—it’s not the kind of thing faculty has much stomach for.”

         Since the election of the current board majority, the district has been deeply divided.

         Thursday, two outside accrediting teams left Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges, saying they were “stunned” by “divisiveness and disharmony” they found. Accreditation is necessary so that students can qualify for federal financial aid and have their credits accepted by universities.

         Members of the board majority say a group of professors is stirring up all the trouble—teachers who’ve lost power and money as a result of reforms the board has passed. [Note: these “professors” began stirring up “trouble”--Brown Act lawsuits, bad press, etc.--months before the loss of any Chairships and reassigned time.]

         None of the four members agreed to an interview, but in a prepared statement Dorothy Fortune said this week that 28 administrators are now doing work that was assigned to 46 in 1996.

         In the process, many faculty members who held quasi-administrative duties have returned to the classroom. She estimates the savings at $1.8 million.

         “Employees who previously benefited from past wasteful district practices have bitterly contested reform,” Fortune said.

         But some rank-and-file members say the discord has been caused by the board majority, who were elected with the help of the union leadership. And this is why they view any new union campaign efforts with suspicion—especially since it again has been done in secret.

         In 1996, the union paid $40,000 to mail out a flier that read: “Stop Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates Who Want to TAKE CONTROL of Your Tax Dollars and Your Community Colleges” and supported three members of the current board majority.

         This campaign, the union has financed a mass mailing supporting Padberg and Wagner that uses another hot-button issue—the proposed El Toro airport—to try to get people to the polls.

         Both in 1996 and this election year, professors say they are unwillingly helping people with ties to groups that the CTA typically fights.

         “I’d love to hear union leaders’ reasoning for supporting these two candidates,” said Roni Lebauer, a Saddleback College professor.

         “They are both endorsed by extremely conservative groups that are anti-union.”

         For example, board President John Williams was backed by the teachers union and elected in 1996. He has strong ties to members of the Education Alliance, which supports opponents of union-backed candidates.

         CTA leader David Lebow, who was called into the south Orange County local to investigate the 1996 campaign, said union leaders may have chosen some unconventional candidates, but they had their reasons.

         “The group they didn’t endorse was interested in reducing their salaries. They really believed it was a threat to their very existence,” said Lebow about the 1996 campaign. “But the (same-sex marriage) flier was bad. ... It was really bad. They did it because they believed they had to win that election.”

         This time, Lebow said, CTA headquarters will once again not monitor the local chapter’s candidate endorsements. Instead, Lebow said, union officials are handling a mail vote on a proposed chapter bylaw change that would prevent any secret endorsements in the 2000 campaign.

         The new bylaws, if passed, would require the current campaign committee to share its plans with a large panel of teachers, which would include an elected representative from each department at the two colleges. The panel would then vote on the campaign committee’s recommendations, and members would be informed of the final decisions.

         But Saddleback College Professor Cheryl Altman said that many teachers are cynical about the effect of a bylaw change.

         “I don’t have any confidence left,” Altman said. “Many of the old bylaws were never followed. You have to have leaders who are willing to follow the rules.”  

RED EMMA FIGHTS FOR PART-TIMER REPRESENTATION

From Dissent 8, 10/26/98 

ORIGINALLY ENTITLED: 

TO “EACH” HIS OWN by Red Emma 

     Still ecstatic over the news of General Augusto Pinochet’s arrest in London this weekend, Red Emma grabbed his worn copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” “Robert’s Rules of Order” and the proposed union bylaws and, careful to avoid all toll roads, transported himself to the FA [faculty union] Rep Council meeting, confident that although the moral arc of the universe might bend, as Dr. King said, toward justice, two such equitable contortions were perhaps too many to hope for in one week. Eager to safeguard any accidental on purpose misinterpretations which might befall the slim concession to part-time faculty representation included in the bylaws, I had spoken by phone earlier to David Lebow, Chair of the CTA Saddleback CC CTA Board Team, making a point of calling to his attention the potentially (in my mind) vulnerable following language in the section on Part-Time (Associate) Faculty Representation. 

     “Part-time faculty at each college shall have one representative on the Representative Council.”

     Red Emma knows what this meant to him and, after speaking with Mr. Lebow, learned that it meant the same to the venerable Chair; that is, there would be, pending approval of the bylaws, TWO part-time rep positions on the ballot, one representing IVC and one Saddleback. An instructor of writing, I advised I would have included the word “each” after “representative” to make things, as General Pinochet’s sponsor, Dick Nixon said, “perfectly clear.” This would have been, Mr. Lebow assured me, redundant and at the meeting he would, he promised, clarify and confirm what I still perceived as a potentially lethal (to part-timers) typo. 

     General Pinochet’s house arrest notwithstanding, there is room for evil in the world and it resides in a little room in the Saddleback library where, true to Red Emma’s sorry expectations, that group we whimsically call the union leadership attempted first to get everybody to agree that nothing could be done about my concern, since the bylaws would be voted on absent clarification. Then Mr. Lebow and his CTA team advised that he was there to “officially” advise the correctness of my interpretation of the “each” clause, after which time it was the responsibility of the Rep Council to amend the bylaws. Yikes. This is where Emma began to wonder if General Pinochet was in fact handcuffed to his hospital bed. A tenacious revanchist sitting next to the tonsorially captivating Madame President indicated that my favorite clause was intentionally “vague,” at which point Mr. Lebow indicated in no uncertain terms that Mr. McClendon was in fact wrong. 

     Mr. McClendon: “Am I right or not right?” 

     Mr. Lebow: “You are not right.” 

     Chair Lebow indicated that the ballot would have to include two part-time reps, a judgment which led to expressions of some discontent from the generals. 

     Meanwhile, back in London, Pinochet, murderer of thousands, reaches for a glass of water. Oops, those darn cuffs. 

     Red Emma left the proceedings suspecting that at next month’s junta meeting, an attempt would be made to strip the nearly 700 SOCCCD part-timers of half of their potential representation on the Council; half of two being exactly one. With Mr. Lebow safely returned to CTA Headquarters, the revanchists will no doubt attempt some shenanigans. Red Emma pledges to alert the CTA to any accidental oversights by the generals. 

     Finally, Red Emma urges all part-timers to join the FA, even though it doesn’t actually want us. Especially because it doesn’t want us. Although you can’t vote on the bylaws if you didn’t sign up before September 1, any dues-paying member can vote in the general election scheduled for November (until the generals find a way to disappear that clause). For the record, Red Emma voted FOR the bylaws—as clarified officially by Mr. Lebow at the October 19 meeting. --RE

Andrew Tonkovich

Williams' secret deal revisited

From the 'Vine 10, October 6, 1998

WILLIAMS’ SECRET DEAL REVISITED; [By Chunk Wheeler; aka Roy Bauer]

            Last July, I wrote the piece that follows. I showed it to my legal advisers, who, upon reflection, suggested that, if I was going to run it, I needed to remove references to certain elements of certain declarations—elements that, if discussed openly, would tip the hand of our legal adversaries. Thus, in the August 17 District News, which was distributed district-wide, I ran a highly edited version of the piece.

            The legal worries no longer obtain, and so here is the unedited version:

WILLIAMS’ ATTEMPT TO BROKER AN ILLEGAL SECRET DEAL BETWEEN THE BOARD MAJORITY AND THE BOARD MINORITY REVEALED

     As you know, we won our first lawsuit against the board of trustees. On September 17, 1997, Judge McDonald of the OC Superior Court found that, with regard to the April 28, 1997, meeting in which Raghu P. Mathur was appointed interim president of Irvine Valley College, the board (and Chancellor) violated five sections of the Ralph M. Brown Act (a.k.a. the California Open Meeting Act), a law that limits secret or private governmental actions and that protects the public’s rights to monitor and comment on them in advance.

     Naturally, the board majority—those noisy champions of “accountability”—accept no blame for this. Instead, insofar as they acknowledge error here at all, they blame it on Spencer Covert, the district’s legal counsel, and Robert Lombardi, our last Chancellor.

     Surprisingly, even after the court’s judgment against them, Williams, Frogue, Fortune, and Lorch have blithely violated Brown provisions anew, complaining all the while about the “needless” court costs incurred by the district, owing to our lawsuit. It never occurs to these people simply to obey the damned law.

     Soon, the court will consider our second Brown Act suit. It concerns three board meetings in particular: the closed meeting of July 16, in which, without warning, and without agendizing the matter, the board majority reorganized the district; the closed meeting of August 18, in which the board was treated to an unagendized address by state official and Mathur crony Vishwas More; and, finally, the closed meeting of September 8, in which the board, after only 25 minutes of discussion, decided to appoint Raghu P. Mathur as “permanent” president of Irvine Valley College.

     I mention, in passing, that, apparently, in July, the board once again violated the Brown Act, for, again in closed session, they discussed a controversial personnel action despite having failed to agendize the matter. The pattern of private decision-making continues.

     My remarks today concern the September meeting only.

     Our efforts to uncover the facts concerning Mathur’s September board appointment have been hampered somewhat by key player Dave Lang’s decision, based on Spencer Covert’s advice, not to answer some of our questions during deposition. (We have pursued a challenge to the alleged privilege that Covert cited to justify Lang’s reticence, but the process is very expensive.) Despite this hurdle, we have managed to assemble information and testimony that, we believe, establishes that each of the board majority, and John Williams in particular, conducted him or herself egregiously and illegally with regard to the presidential appointment.

     The gist of the remarks that follow is that, prior to the September meeting, Williams approached minority trustee Dave Lang in an attempt to broker a deal between the board majority and the board minority regarding the upcoming presidential appointment. Williams’ own testimony makes this clear. It also implies that he sought, on behalf of the majority, specifically to secure an “unopposed” or “unanimous” vote for Raghu Mathur as  IVC president. These circumstances imply that the majority had already agreed privately to support Mathur’s appointment prior to the meeting on the 8th, in violation of the Brown Act. Further, insofar as Williams was acting on behalf of the board majority, his attempt to broker a deal between the opposing groups on the board in itself constituted a violation of the Brown Act, for it constituted part of an effort to reach a “collective concurrence” through secret or private communications.

     Perhaps inadvertently, Williams has provided useful testimony in establishing these facts. On March 12, 1998, he signed a legal “declaration” regarding events referred to in our suit. In paragraph 7 of his declaration, Williams acknowledges that, prior to the September 8 board meeting, he spoke with Lang. According to Williams, during that conversation, he expressed his “hope” that the Sept. 8 presidential vote would be “unanimous or at least unopposed.” Later in the declaration, Williams adds:

At that time I also asked Mr. Lang whether it would be possible to reach a compromise on the Mathur appointment with the Board members who opposed his appointment; however, Mr. Lang never responded back to me on that issue. 

     Just what do these assertions tell us? In the highlighted sentence, Williams implies that there exists, first, a group of board members (in fact, the so called “board minority” of Lang, Hueter, and Milchiker) who oppose Mathur’s appointment and, second, a group (in fact, the so-called “board majority” of Williams, Frogue, Fortune, and Lorch) who support it. Further, in that sentence, Williams clearly describes himself as attempting to broker an agreement, a deal—he uses the term “compromise”—between these two opposing groups regarding the Mathur appointment. He implies that, in his conversation with Lang, he regarded the trustee as a representative of the minority group that opposed Mathur’s appointment. Finally, in the last part of Williams’ remark, he describes himself as waiting for a minority “response” from Lang.

     Williams’ choice of the word “compromise” is illuminating. Observe that, by definition, a compromise involves concessions made by each of two opposing parties relative to some decision or action. With respect to the September 8 meeting, the salient decision or action was the selection of a president by majority vote among the seven trustees. But since Mr. Williams knew that his group—the four persons of the “majority”—already had the votes to appoint their man Mathur as IVC president, Williams’ compromise was not an effort simply to gain Mathur’s appointment. That Mathur would be voted in as IVC president was already a done deal, and everyone knew it. (Bear in mind that each of the board majority had already voted—in April—to make Mathur interim president of IVC. Further, when the 8th arrived, each of the board majority did in fact vote for Mathur.)

     For Williams, what was not yet a done deal was the nature of the majority vote through which Mathur would win appointment—that is, whether it would be a mere majority vote or a unanimous vote. To the board majority, politically, a unanimous vote in support of Mathur would be much better than a 4-3 split along the usual lines. The occurrence of yet another 4-3 board majority victory would validate the already widely-held belief that the board majority were imposing their will on everyone else within the district. As we saw, in his declaration, Williams acknowledges that, during his conversation with Lang, he expressed hope that the presidential vote would be “unanimous or at least unopposed.” Then he speaks of attempting to broker a “compromise” between the two trustee groups. What else would this compromise be about if not the adjustment of minority member votes in order to achieve unanimity?

     I submit that there is no reasonable alternative to my interpretation of Williams’ talk of “a compromise” in paragraph 7. In a moment, I shall present facts that clinch the matter.

Williams’ word “compromise” implies concessions on both sides—one does not speak of a “compromise” when only one side concedes something. Curiously, though Williams seems to allude to the proposed minority concession—namely, refraining from voting against Mathur—he fails to refer in any way to the majority concession. One  obvious question raised, then, by paragraph 7 of the Williams declaration is: what was the majority’s concession supposed to be in the deal—the “compromise”—that Williams, by his own admission, sought to broker prior to the September 8 board meeting?

     The question is answered by others who have given, or who will soon give, testimony, through declarations, regarding these events. According to that testimony, on the 5th of September (and after his conversation with Williams), Lang called Terry Burgess—then an Irvine Valley College VP and Mathur’s supposed nemesis—and related to him the “deal” offered by Williams. According to Burgess, et alia, the deal was that, in exchange for the minority’s cooperation in securing an unopposed or unanimous Mathur vote, Burgess and VP Pam Deegan would have their contracts renewed. (It is possible that, at first, the deal called for the minority to vote for Mathur; later, in response to its apparent failure, the deal was adjusted by Williams so that it only called for the minority to refrain from voting against  Mathur.)

     This is extraordinary. In effect, Williams was saying: “Vote for Mathur, or we’ll fire your favorite IVC administrators.”

     (It is significant that this is the second episode in which the board majority had offered similar contract renewals for Burgess and Deegan in return for “cooperation”—read “coercion”—with the Evil 4. Unfortunately, because this first sleazy attempt is the subject of pending litigation, I cannot discuss the particulars.)

     Later that day, Lang, Burgess, Deegan, and one other IVC VP [Bob Loeffler] met at a Coco’s restaurant. They had assembled, of course, to discuss the deal—the “compromise”—that Williams was offering. According to Burgess and others, Lang made clear that Williams was offering the deal, not on his own initiative, but on behalf of the board majority.

     After a few words from Lang, Burgess and Deegan immediately said that they did not want to be the beneficiaries of this deal. “Don’t do us this favor,” they said. Reportedly, Lang, who no doubt recoiled at the idea that, by rejecting the “compromise,” he would be the one who caused or permitted the firing of the excellent Burgess and Deegan, expressed relief at their response, for he was very troubled by the deal and clearly hoped to avoid making the decision whether to participate in it.

     At some point thereafter, Lang called minority trustee Joan Hueter and apprised her of Williams’ offer and the day’s events. Hueter made clear that there was no way she would have gone along with this so-called “compromise.” It appears that, at least by then, Lang recognized that, even had Burgess and Deegan supported it, he would not have gone along with the arrangement.

     Lang also called Williams to inform him that the deal was definitely off.

     The next morning—Saturday, the 6th  of September—then-Chancellor Robert Lombardi called Burgess to urge him to support the deal and to bring Deegan on board. Apparently, Lombardi had spoken with Williams, who informed him of the failure of the attempted “compromise” arrangement. (How Lombardi learned of the deal’s failure is not clear, but that he spoke with Williams seems certain. Observe that the Brown Act prohibits secret “serial meetings” among, not only trustees, but staff, such as the Chancellor.) Lombardi, who, it is said, suffers from an exaggerated sense of his persuasive powers, thought that he could bring Burgess around, but, even after a half hour, Burgess, speaking on his own and Deegan’s behalf, hadn’t budged.

     After the Lombardi phone call, Burgess felt obliged to inform Deegan about it, and so he phoned her, but Deegan, too, was resolute. There was no way she was going along with this sleazy deal. Following that phone call, Burgess called Lang to inform him of Lombardi’s phone call and Burgess and Deegan’s continued refusal to cooperate with such a repulsive arrangement.

     I should emphasize that, by all accounts, Lang was at best extremely uncomfortable with Williams’ proposal. I have been told that, at some point, Williams tried to induce Lang to support Mathur’s candidacy by promising support for Lang during the December trustee officer “elections.” That is, in exchange for Lang’s vote now, Williams would support Lang for treasurer in December. Lang rejected this out of hand. Probably, Lang was less quick to reject the “Burgess and Deegan” proposal because he recognized that the jobs of two people he greatly respected were at stake.

So what?

     Observe that there is a great difference between, on the one hand, attempting to persuade someone to vote for a particular candidate on the basis of his merits and, on the other hand,∞providing someone with an incentive to vote for the candidate (or to refrain from voting against him) that has nothing to do with his merits—e.g., proposing to pay for the favorable vote or threatening some evil if the favorable vote does not materialize. Usually, the former kind of persuasion is legitimate; generally, however, the latter kind of persuasion is sleazy and unethical—terms that clearly apply to Mr. Williams’ conduct and the conduct of others, if any, among the board majority who participated in hatching this extortive “compromise” deal.

     No matter what the details were, Mr. Williams’ attempts, during a private conversation with a trustee prior to a board meeting, to broker a deal between opposing trustee camps regarding an upcoming vote, was an assault on the ideal of open and honest government.

     With the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state of California has wisely forbidden private agreements among members of “legislative bodies”—e.g., community college trustees. We believe that, prior to the Sept. 8 meeting, Mr. Williams and his compatriots secretly agreed, through private conversations, to support Raghu Mathur and, further, secretly pursued a deal concerning the presidential appointment with their opponents on the board. These actions were violations of the Brown Act.

     I should add that, on the 5th of September, the district PIO contacted IVC requesting photographs of Mr. Mathur to be sent by the 8th. Draw your own conclusions.

     Especially when one considers the details of this episode—the terms of the agreement, etc.—can there really be any doubt at all that Mr. Williams and his allies are unfit for public office?

     Williams: “Prior to the Sept. 8, 1997 Board meeting, I spoke to Trustee David Lang, who voted in the minority against the Mathur appointment, and told him that I hoped that the Board’s appointment to a position as significant as president of Irvine Valley College would be unanimous or at least unopposed. I did not request Mr. Lang to vote in any particular way or not to vote, nor did I ask him how he would vote. Mr. Lang did not tell me how he intended to vote. At that time I also asked Mr. Lang whether it would be possible to reach a compromise on the Mathur appointment with the Baord members who opposed his appointment; however, Mr. Lang never responded back to me on that issue.”

See September 1998 Depositions

INTERN FOR THE NATION WRITES ABOUT IVC

GRAPHIC: cover of THE NATION, 10/5/98 

“What do students want?” 

     Recent IVC graduate Sanaz ”Action Figure” Mozafarian spent the summer interning for the Nation; presently, she’s continuing her education at Berkeley. Before she left the Nation, however, she contributed to a story, out this week, concerning “what’s happening” on college campuses. It includes reports from seven institutions: Harvard, U of NC/Chapel Hill, Mount Holyoke, Bowdoin, U of W/Madison, Howard, and, in the #2 spot, Irvine Valley! Here’s Sanaz’s fine contribution to that lengthy report: 

IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE 

     When California community college students said “no more” to the authoritarian school board of Irvine Valley College earlier this year, they got a taste of what faculty and staff had been complaining about for years: straight-up oppression. 

     The seven-member South Orange County Community College District Board, elected by voters every four years, is the ultimate authority on employment, budgets and policy for the 12,000-student college. During their 1996 campaign, several board members appealed to conservative voters by accusing their opponents of supporting same-sex marriage. Since then they’ve pushed their right-wing agenda from the boardroom to the classroom. Last year Steven Frogue, then the board’s president, proposed to teach a class on JFK assassination theories that was to include a guest speaker from The Spotlight (which the Anti-Defamation League has labeled the nation’s most anti-Semitic publication) who claims the Israeli Mossad was responsible. Board members and college president Raghu Mathur, appointed by the board last year, have ignored faculty hiring suggestions and replaced administration dissidents with cronies who claim to be apolitical; some who have questioned the board’s decisions have been threatened by self-proclaimed white supremacists. 

     Last year students, local residents and members of the Jewish and gay communities joined the faculty and staff efforts to challenge the board. In a rare show of Orange County activism, students Delilah Snell and Diep Burbridge gathered nearly 100 of their colleagues for a series of campus demonstrations, the first in the college’s near-twenty-year history. They denounced the hiring of Mathur, demanded the recall of Frogue and called attention to the possible loss of the college’s accreditation. The rallies attracted major media coverage. In response, the board, Mathur and their cronies claimed the students were “misled” by a handful of “disgruntled employees” and “leftist” faculty. Even freedom of speech took a nosedive. Snell and Burbridge were initially told to give twenty-four-hour notice before each demonstration and to submit to college officials for review everything they would be passing out. After meetings with the president in which they were accused of “misleading” others and hostile encounters with board supporters, the students were at first permitted one hour a week to hold their demonstrations. Soon it was reduced to thirty minutes. 

     Now the students, represented by the ACLU, are suing Mathur and the board for violating their First Amendment rights. According to the lawsuit, filed this past summer, the demonstrations were relocated from the center of campus to an isolated area where students were told to keep their noise level down. When the limits were questioned, students were told it was not in the “best interest of the college” to hold a longer protest in a more visible part of campus, given the “political climate.” 

     The board’s actions are astonishing, but what is even more astonishing is that at a small commuter college, in a largely Republican district where most people never learn the names of public officials, these students cared enough to challenge injustice and are fighting to secure future students’ rights. So much for apathy. 

SANAZ MOZAFARIAN 

Sanaz Mozafarian is a recent Nation intern and the former editor in chief of Irvine Valley College ‘s student newspaper [the VOICE].