THE "RAT BASTARD" INCIDENT plus MORE LIES by Big Bill

[From the ‘Vine 12, 11/30/98]
[Originally entitled:]

THE MATHURIAN CANDIDATE: MY LIFE AMONG THE WEASELS by BIG BILL

You hand in your ticket
And you go watch the geek
Who immediately walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, “How does it feel
To be such a freak?”
And you say “Impossible”
As he hands you a bone.
And something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?

—Bob Dylan

Glenn and Glenda

On Tuesday, at about 1:45, I had finished my Intro lecture in A400 and then, after speaking briefly with one or two students, I headed out the west door on my way to a press conference over in the temporaries that I had heard about that morning. But there were no signs of any such event—and then I realized that it would be at Saddleback College, not IVC. I turned around and headed back to my office.

Fifteen minutes later, I was standing in front of the duplicating machine in A200, reading an article that someone had taped to the window. Suddenly, I heard my name.

Who can say why some events seem so utterly strange? I looked to my left, and, to my great surprise, there stood Glenn Roquemore, the acting VP of Instruction, sporting an insincere smile and an envelope marked “Confidential.” Somehow, in my mind, I saw Flipper, offering a sardine. I stepped back, nearly falling into the sea.

Glenn and I have never been friends, but I had spoken with him once or twice over the years and then, in the summer of ’97, together with Howard “Boom Boom” Dachslager, we began our ill-fated tenurette as new school chairs. As was her custom, Dean Pam Deegan provided a series of seminars to get the Newbies up to speed, and so, for a brief period, this cozy little group—Pam, Glenn, Howard, and I—met on a regular basis.

During one session, I challenged Glenn and Howard to explain to me the basis of their evident distrust of the School of Humanities and Languages, an attitude shared by many, it seemed, at their end of campus. I assured them that, in my experience, and contrary to what they seemed to think, I had never encountered nor even heard about plots against them or against anyone else by the School of H&L. As far as I could tell, I said, H & L has always pursued its goals and agendas openly and directly. (I could have added: without the use of anonymous petitions, enemies lists, or secret backroom deals.) I added that, whatever anyone else had allegedly done, I was determined to be completely open about anything I was contemplating doing as chair.

I suggested—naively, I suppose—that the troubled relationship between the faculty of the two “poles” of campus stemmed in large part from the failure of both groups to get to know and trust each other. Unfamiliarity had bred suspicion, said I.

I challenged both Glenn and Howard to spend time with me—perhaps on a Saturday—so that we might come to understand each other and our motives and agendas.

Upon hearing this, Glenn and Howard seemed at a loss for words. As my father, an earthy fellow, might say, “They didn’t know whether to shit or go blind.” As I recall, however, they neither shat nor went blind; instead, they agreed that our getting together informally was a good idea.
Naturally, Glenn and Howard responded to my conciliatory pass with ball droppage. I never again heard from them. After a time, I left messages with Glenn and, I think, Howard to try to set something up, but they failed to respond.

Which is fine. But a few months later (Jan. 1), Glenn had a letter in the OC Metro in which he defended Mr. Frogue and Mr. Goo. He blamed the controversy surrounding them on “political left-wing activists that have lost power as a result of the reorganization.” Here, Glenn revealed his preferred fighting style: slimy, dishonest, sophistical. Never mind his opponents’ position or their arguments; better to attack their alleged motives and pander to the prejudices of the Metro’s entrepreneurial readership.

Then Glenn became a key participant in last summer’s efforts to harass me. Flouting district procedures, he actually shopped around for a dean—ignoring my own dean—to help him to pursue alleged “complaints” against me—such as my failure to take daily attendance!

So it was this duplicitous colleague who now confronted me with a smile and a fishy envelope. Overcoming his tight cetaceous grimace, he used both lips to explain that Richard P., my latest dean, would have been the one to hand me the document, but the fellow simply could not be found. It was up to Glenn, then, to perform the task. He said that he waited for me to exit the east door of A400 after my class, but I had confounded him by exiting the west door.

Yeah, sure. I took the letter and opened it. I realized that it was from Raghu and concerned the Nov. 4 “rat bastard” episode, and so I smiled, thanked Glenn—I had no fish—and then walked to my office.

Here’s what the letter said:

On Tuesday [sic], November 4, 1998, at approximately 9:25 A.M., you were talking with my Executive Assistant…right outside my office. During this conversation, you were overheard making the following comment in a loud and disruptive manner: “I feel like saying something loudly. Rat bastard. Of course, I am not talking about anyone around here.” Your comment was meant to be overheard by me.

Hmmm. How could Mr. Goo possibly know how my remark was meant? Actually, it was meant to be overheard, not by Raghu, but by friends in the vicinity. As for its being “disruptive,” I deny that anything or anyone was thrown into confusion or disorder by my utterance. At most, one or two employees in the building heard it, and they seemed to respond by going about their business as though nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. “Rat bastard? Yeah, sure.”

Sure, you can “screw” a guy; but don’t use the word!

Mr. Goo’s letter continues as follows:

I would like to state that such comment is unbecoming of a professor, and is therefore unacceptable.

It is amusing--and disturbing--to encounter people who conceive “acceptable conduct” entirely in terms of decorum and civility—“small morals.” It is as though they don’t even recognize larger, more significant, morals—the standards of conduct that concerns justice, fairness, weal and woe. As far as these people are concerned, you may screw a guy—falsely accusing him of a hate crime and then running for the protection of an administrative “privilege”—but you may not say “screw a guy.”

Within my field (Ethics), “right conduct” refers generally to larger morals. Here, misconduct refers, not to violations of protocol, but to violations of decency such as: schemes and deceptions born of a need for glory and a willingness to treat others as means, not ends. Or: having people fired out of pure vindictiveness or insecurity. Or: acting to secure personal goals at the expense of the community and its institutions. But not: saying “rat bastard” in the A100 building.

Do I contradict myself?

The next part of Raghu’s letter is particularly interesting:

I would like to remind you of my admonishment placed on your last evaluation on November 26, 1997 that “It is recommended that Professor Bauer assist with the establishment of a positive, healthy, and professional environment which will be most conducive for faculty and staff to serve our students.” [My emphasis.]

About a year ago, Raghu had inserted the above “recommendation,” or something very like it, in the teaching evaluations of several instructors. Curiously, each of the instructors—some of them quite decorous—was a critic of the Mathur administration.

When I met with Raghu last fall to discuss the matter, he denied that the remark was critical. It was only a “recommendation,” he said. I am told that, in the course of a grievance procedure on behalf of one of the other instructors, he again stated, addressing a CTA official, that the remark was not critical.

But, in his letter to me, he describes that same remark as an “admonishment,” that is, he implies that it is critical.

So, Raghu, were you lying then, or are you lying now?

Now you see this one-eyed midget
Shouting the word “Now”
And you say, “For what reason?”
And he says “How”
And you say, “What does this mean?”
And he screams back, “You’re a cow;
Give me some milk or else go home.”
And you know something’s happening
But you don’t know what it is.
Do you, Mr. Jones?

—BB

How to inspire administrators/trustees to go after you

     Starting in May of 1997, I participated in an effort, largely organized by instructor/lawyer Wendy Phillips (later, Wendy Gabriella) to urge the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees to observe California's open meetings law, called the "Brown Act." In May, we provided the board with a "demand of cure and correct," but they ignored it. In July, the board plainly violated the Brown Act again by reorganizing the entire district in closed session. (They had not agendized the matter; further, such a matter is not permitted in closed session.) Again, we issued a "demand." In August, the board violated the Brown Act again. We prevailed throughout the process. The judge opined that the board had engaged in "persistent and defiant misconduct." Naturally, the board was very angry. 

     Meanwhile, I had distributed a newsletter that included satirical graphics and writings. It was harshly critical of the "board majority," the union leadership that got them elected, and the board's toady, Raghu P. Mathur. This, too, angered the board, et al.

     In November of 1998, the Orange County Register printed a brief essay of mine that, again, was very critical of the board and the union leadership. See below.

     Very soon thereafter, I was handed a letter from the Chancellor that accused me of violating two board policies in my newsletters. I hired a lawyer and we met with Chancellor Sampson, who reiterated the accusations and ordered me to anger management counseling. 

     I hired another lawyer (Carol Sobel) and sued the district for violating my 1st Amendment rights. I prevailed.

BAUER on SUNDAY (uh-oh)

The piece below appeared in the OC Register in late November, 1998, a Sunday. I was pretty critical of the "Board Majority." Within days of its appearance, I was handed a letter from the Chancellor. I was ordered to meet with him. He informed me that I was being ordered to go to "anger management" counseling, owing to elements that had appeared in Dissent and 'Vine. Further, I was told that I had been violating the district's "workplace violence" and "discrimination" policies. A letter was placed in my personnel file. I fought the letter and these actions and prevailed. That story is told elsewhere in the Archives (early 1999), etc. I still think the letter accurately portrays the Board Majority. Click on the image to make it much larger.

Frogue on a nut roll; Lorch's "straight productivity model"; Raghu's finger

[Dissent 12, 11/23/98]

[Originally entitled:]

THE NOVEMBER 16 BOARD MEETING:

Bullock and Sampson show gumption! Frogue calls for list of “class sizes” per district instructor! Lorch urges use of “straight productivity model” for faculty hires; a new era of super-duper micromanagement!

by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

Were a stranger to drop on a sudden into this world, I would show him, as a specimen of its ills, a hospital full of diseases, a prison crowded with malefactors and debtors, a field of battle strewed with carcasses, a fleet foundering in the ocean, a nation languishing under tyranny, famine, or pestilence. To turn the gay side of life to him and give him a notion of its pleasures—whither should I conduct him? To a ball, to an opera, to court? He might justly think that I was only showing him a diversity of distress and sorrow.

—DAVID HUME

I arrived at IVC’s Student Services Center at about 7:30. I thought I had arrived early, for this board has consistently started late—sometimes very late—for many months. On the other hand, evidently, I hadn’t missed much, except for Marcia Milchiker’s “Invocation,” which, by her own account, was rambling and “philosophical,” and the pulling of item #24: “Irvine Valley College: Costa Rica Study Abroad Program.”

What’s that about? Board observers will recall that, on Dot Fortune’s first night as trustee two years ago, she expressed the groundless suspicion that the Costa Rica program was, in reality, a mere “surf party.” Perhaps that incompetent notion has struck her again.

I arrived in time for item #7: “SOCCCD ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION.” According to the agenda, “The district, Irvine Valley College, and Saddleback College have reviewed the current administrative structure as directed by the Board of Trustees, and are submitting for review and study their recommendations for realignment of units to best serve the administrative needs of the district and colleges.”

Now, I don’t recall our college having participated in this effort. Evidently, the document, which is a draft, recommends, among other things, nine deans each for Saddleback and IVC. Wow. Later, during his report, Peter Morrison, president of the IVC Academic Senate, stated that “we [the IVC Academic Senate] are not a party to the recommendations discussed tonight.”

Fortune complained about the document’s charts. Evidently, she’s not a chart person; she’s a list person. She complained about the quality of the information being submitted, and, naturally, Mr. Frogue, who suspected intrigues, concurred.
Ms. Lorch indicated that we’re “behind” on the Tustin base project, and so she favored moving ahead with the Tustin “Provost” position. (Some have speculated that the board is contemplating moving the Gooster out to Tustin. Someone asked me, “Do you suppose Lorch’s support for the Tustin position has anything to do with that?”)

Fortune expressed her dissatisfaction with the number of deans “cropping up” in this recommendation. For reasons unknown, soon thereafter, we broke for 20 minutes.

After the break, we moved on to item #8: FACULTY HIRING. The board was being asked to accept “for review and study” the 1999-2000 “Position Request Lists” from the two colleges. As you know, these lists reflect much discussion, compromise, Sturm und Drang. Naturally, the Board Four, showing their usual low regard of every other group in the district, approached the lists with suspicion and disdain.

Ms. Milchiker noted that the district should hire the “best and the brightest,” which has been a district desideratum, she said, from its beginning. Mr. Lang asked how many positions we can expect to fill. Answer: maybe 5 for IVC; maybe 7 for Saddleback. Saddleback must fill many vacancies created by retirements, said president Bullock. Chancellor Sampson urged the board to approve the lists.

At about this time, Mr. Frogue launched into his familiar rant about “wait lists.” “Wait lists, wait lists, wait lists,” he seemed to say. He noted that no business instructors appeared on the lists. He asked if students had had input.

Chancellor Sampson was quick to respond. He assured the board that enrollments and student demand were certainly taken into account in creating the lists. He asked the two Senate presidents to comment. Saddleback’s Maureen Smith explained that a mathematical formula concerning demand, etc., was used early in the process.

Then, Mr. Frogue, surprising no one, demanded “raw meat.” (Or was it “raw data”?) He seemed to suggest that the hiring lists reflected not true need, but a “slant.” As I recall, at some point, Ms. Fortune, too, implied that these hiring lists reflect the desires of those who exert the most influence on the process.

Did they offer any evidence for these suspicions? They did not.

Mr. Frogue was very concerned that five PE hires were on the lists (or Saddleback’s list). John “PE Boy” Williams began to hiss. Smith indicated that, among other things, the list reflected retiree replacements, and that accounted for some apparent oddities.

“I’ve heard,” said Mr. Frogue, that there are PE courses “with 2, 3, 5 students.” (The hissing grew louder.) We should stress class size, he said. He brought up wait lists again.

Thus began the career of the Board Majority’s idée fixe of the evening: WAIT LISTS = HIRING PRIORITIES. The notion metastasized; despite everyone’s efforts, it spread outward and left no survivors.

Eventually, Ms. Hill, the student trustee, weighed in. “I’ve waited sometimes three semesters to get a cornerstone class” in computers, she said.

Ms. Lorch stated that we need to use more of a “productivity model.” (Later, this became a “straight productivity model.”) As things stand, we follow a “program based” model, and, for that reason, we are losing revenue. She said that she did not see “productivity” reflected in the hiring lists. There are long wait lists, she said, for human development classes, and yet no human development instructor is being hired! Thus students will go elsewhere, and we’ll all go to hell in a handbasket.

Mr. Frogue commented that, from the beginning of his long teaching career, he has always been bothered by this talk of a “formula” used to hire new instructors. We need to consider students as more than just a factor in a formula, he said, idiotically. He added that the trustees need to understand the formula that’s being used, for “things have become unglued.”

Chancellor Sampson looked desperate. He noted, lamely, that the trustees’ comments were “appropriate,” that productivity is indeed important. He confessed that he was remiss in not including in his report the elements used—including productivity—in arriving at the lists. He explained that each college had a different way of doing the formulas, but their intent was to respond to productivity concerns. “I think it’s here,” he said. “I just haven’t got it out.”

Ms. Fortune claimed to be quoting former fiscal VC Newmeyer when she proclaimed that if something could not be explained in a paragraph, then something’s wrong. Evidently, she judged that the process by which the hiring lists were determined remained unclear. Showing momentary intelligence, she noted that the issue of class demand does not necessarily imply a need for full-time hires, since part-timers can be used to staff added classes. (I believe that Lorch and Frogue responded to this by forming puddles of drool.) She even commented on the lack of rooms for additional classes. (More drool.)

Mr. Williams then awoke from his dogmatic slumber. He indicated that what he wanted to say had already been said by others. He added, however, that the presence of so many PE instructors on the list reflected the large number of retirees in PE. This was not the only time this night that Mr. Williams and Mr. Frogue seemed to disagree.

It was President Bullock, I believe, who noted that, if we don’t replace the retirees, we will thereby do away with some programs. Earlier, someone had noted the presence of a Fashion instructor on the list and was doubtful; in fact, said Bullock, the Fashion instructor is our last, so if we don’t replace him/her, that’s it for Fashion.

Raghu “the Beav” Mathur asked IVC Academic Senate president Morrison to explain IVC’s list. Peter stated in no uncertain terms that IVC’s list is based on productivity. One element among the considerations was the need to reach the 55% standard. (I believe this refers to the following situation: when the ratio of full-timers to part-timers is below a specific number, the state fines us for being out of compliance.) Peter added that, in arriving at the list, it was left to areas (e.g., Humanities and Languages) to make specific decisions (e.g., Philosophy vs. History). These decisions were examined by the Senate, and if they made sense, we went forward with them.

Saddleback’s Maureen Smith explained that Saddleback is a “comprehensive college.” In fact, Fashion is a vital program. Further, by failing to replace the retiring Fashion instructor, we would end that program, and, she said, you don’t discontinue programs without going through a process.

Lorch

Ms. Lorch insisted, against all evidence, that she understood the special case of retiring instructors. She now seemed to say that IVC evidently uses a productivity model but, it seems, Saddleback does not. “I am correct, then,” she announced peevishly. Sure enough, somebody isn’t using a “straight productivity model.”

Bullock pointedly reiterated that Saddleback is a “comprehensive college,” and that, therefore, we simply cannot follow a straight productivity model.

Lorch snippily declared that, in pursuing this comprehensive college business, we are doomed to bankruptcy! She fell back into her chair as if to express disgust.

Ms. Miller-White, whose love of fashion is manifest, stated that she had problems with a straight productivity model.

Thereupon Mr. Frogue went into “nut” mode. “Who,” he asked, “has control of the hiring process?” He implied that we don’t always hire the “best and the brightest” because there are people who control the hiring process, and these nasty characters—Communists? Zionists?—make sure that their people get hired.

Frogue was on a nut roll. He launched into his favorite topic: the fate of information as it travels in bureaucracies. He spoke once again of the “universe of information” and “thrice selected samples.” (Mr. Frogue never says anything he hasn’t already said in exactly the same way many times before.) The last time he spoke of these things, he accused administrators of deleting and manufacturing information as it traveled to the board. This time, he seemed to say that the board couldn’t trust the process whereby the hiring lists were assembled. Once again, he demanded raw meat.

“Wait lists, wait lists, wait lists!” he said. And then, a new thought: “I’d like to see a list of class sizes for every teacher in the district!” (You can bet that Mr. Chandos and his friends will soon put a stop to that. I do believe that Mr. C has recently crossed into “negative students” territory.)

The Chancellor gently expressed skepticism of the value of the “class sizes per instructor” list. Perhaps class size lists per area or discipline, he offered. And he was doubtful about this “PE classes with two students” business. Somewhat pointedly, he asked: “What was your expectation [in receiving these lists]?” Did Mr. Frogue expect only Math positions and the like to be on the list?

“Yes,” said Frogue, inspiring laughter. “I need this data to do my job,” he added.

Lorch had evidently used her brief time away from the mike to create a demeanor of utter stupidity and condescension. She now lectured: “We are in a new era.” There is an “industrial revolution in education.” We need to compete with other schools, and that requires being productive. Concerning productivity and its role in the hiring process, she was hearing one thing from IVC, another thing from Saddleback, she said. She just wanted to know whether the colleges were using a “straight productivity model.” “I don’t need more data,” she concluded, once again sinking into her chair with an air of peevitude.

Someone near me muttered that, after 5 1/2 years, Lorch had learned absolutely nothing. Another person just shook his head, saying, “She’s an idiot.”

Not to be outdone, Dot Fortune suggested that what might be happening in these hiring processes is that “the biggest chum” is being hired. Of course, as we all know, there is truth in this. There is truth exactly insofar as we focus upon the subset of hiring processes that involve some of the Board Majority’s supporters among the faculty. Indeed, among that unsavory crowd, the practice of seeking to hire someone you sleep with is not unknown. But never mind.

* * * * *

During public remarks, Jack Drummond, the Frogue-friendly Lariat reporter, spoke on behalf of the similarly deserving Mr. Walker, advisor to the paper. It is not true, said Drummond, that Mr. Walker threw furniture across the room. Blah blah blah, he said.

At that point, the board had heard testimony (a month or two ago) from about a dozen former and current editors of the Lariat, all of whom judged Walker to be doing a strikingly lousy job. Now, upon having heard this solitary dissenting voice, Mr. Frogue proclaimed, “This is what I suspected all along!”

I wanted to burst into peals of laughter. I did, inside. My eyeballs spun.


Mr. Frogue explained that he has known Walker for many years, and he’s a great guy. He said that he wanted to “draw a parallel here.” We see people bent on destroying the reputations of their leaders, using the newspapers to spread lies, and all for selfish ends. Frogue confessed that he never understood that behavior. It is “gang” behavior, said Frogue, and he has always fought against that.

Eventually, Lee Walker spoke “from his heart,” he said. The charges against him are all untrue, he insisted. He said that he would be happy to compare his credentials as a journalist with those of any instructor in the community college system—indeed, in the state university system. After all, he has even taught in the Sudan.

At one point, Walker expressed disappointment that administrators hadn’t come to his defense. “I would think some administrators would stand up to defend me!” he said. For three semesters, said the Walk Man, he has been “brutalized.” Speaking to the board, he said: “I expect you to support me.”

(This is not the first time that Mr. Walker has demanded support in this fashion. He was the Lariat’s advisor many years ago, but when he returned from his epoch-shattering trip to the Sudan, the job had been given to someone else. He thus threatened to resign, but the board pleaded with him to stay.)

Ms. Fortune opined that the attacks against Mr. Walker were “unconscionable.” She noted that none of these students had ever bothered to pursue a written grievance.

Mr. Frogue provided an analysis of the situation. People feel that they own the “vehicle,” the “animal,” he said. Their emotional commitment is so great that they think they own the place.

Somehow, that point inspired Mr. Frogue to denounce the professional reporters (from the LA Times and the OC Register) who had criticized those hapless student reporters who spoke on his behalf during a notorious press conference. It was that old gang behavior again, said Frogue.

“People should be stood up for,” offered the Froguester. “I’ve known Lee for two decades.” He’s a “fine man, a fine teacher.” I detected laughter coming from somewhere in the building.

Frogue concluded by saying that the attacks on Walker were, “un-American” and “disgusting.”

* * * * *

This brought us to the Board members’ reports. Marcia wished Lorch and Hueter well in their “future endeavors.” She also explained that the Irvine Spectrum area will become the “new Silicone Valley.”

Mr. Lang expressed special thanks to Joan Hueter. He congratulated Nancy Padberg and Don Wagner on their recent election victories and expressed hope that they would, as promised, be independent. He also expressed hope that the board would heed the advice of the Accrediting Teams by accepting its policy-making role and ceasing to micromanage.

Mr. Frogue thanked Ms. Lorch profusely, saying that she was “head and shoulders above others” with respect to her knowledge. (No, she’s an idiot.)

He added that, though they often disagreed, he always respected Ms. Hueter. Something tells me the feeling isn’t mutual.

Frogue asked for “extended time” to make his remarks, which were, despite his efforts, bitter and bilious. He has been the subject of two recalls, he said. He feels bad more for the people who pursued them than for himself. They started to believe their own lies, said the Froguester, believing his own lie. He condemned those who play on the fear and ignorance of others. These remarks seemed to be directed to, among others, certain “members of the board.”

He listed some of the officials and institutions that joined the recall effort. But the “people,” he said, rejected the recall “wholesale.” (Well, no.) I may be mistaken, but I believe that he said that those who signed the recall petitions were “stupid.”

At one point, Mr. Frogue displayed cartoons that people had sent him. He seemed especially fond of a cartoon that depicted reporters all drinking from the same toilet bowl. “I beat ‘em with one hand tied behind my back,” said Frogue.

Nevertheless, he added, it is “a time for healing.” He urged the Chancellor to put together a “reconciliation committee.” We should watch to see who refuses to back off from the hostilities—and then we can place blame where it belongs, said the Froguester. Yeah, that’ll promote healing all right.

Ms. Hill said that she learned “how to ask questions” from Ms. Lorch.

Inexplicably, Mr. Frogue interrupted Hill’s report to present John Williams with what appeared to be a broom wrapped in newsprint (issues of the Irvine World News). “I’m supposed to tell you it’s a two-seater,” said Frogue. Williams looked as though he had just been handed a sack of excrement. Everyone else just looked puzzled.

Ms. Lorch, apparently running for office, offered an odd report that referred occasionally to an essay by a part-timer. Lorch seemed to be saying that part-timers are exploited. What had she done about that situation in the last 5 1/2 years?

Nothing.

She closed by urging others to pursue community service. For the community’s sake, I would like to urge her to please stop pursuing community service.

Ms. Fortune blathered about her being unclear whether the reorganization saved money. We never have been able to get a definitive answer from the “fiscal authorities,” she said.

She took a swipe at the Academic Senates, saying that she wanted minutes of their meetings. She said something about wait lists.

Evidently, Dot has just heard about this hot new thing called “distance learning.” Could we have a forum on distance learning? she asked.

Mr. “Goo” Mathur’s report was emotional. He explained that things have been tough for him in the last 16 months, but his “faith” has sustained him. At the end of his remarks, he stated, as is his custom, that when one points one’s finger at others, three fingers point right back.

After the reports, item #38 came up for discussion: CLASSIFIED EMPLOYMENT AND STATUS CHANGES. Teddi Lorch seemed to object to the recommendation. After a fairly unpleasant exchange between Bullock and Lorch, the latter stated that “either I was lied to or I don’t get full information. I’m not real happy.”

Chancellor Sampson took Bullock’s side. He seemed to suggest that Lorch’s questions were of such a nature that they should have been asked much earlier in the process. He advised her—and the board—not to pursue issues at this level of detail, at least at this late stage. I seem to recall that Sampson urged the board to focus on issues of policy.

Near the end of the meeting, the issue of “Review of Academic Administrative Evaluation” came up. Peter Morrison pointed out that, according to the Ed code, faculty are to have a role in the evaluation of administrators.

Ms. Fortune simply rejected his point. --BB

TRUSTEE HUETER'S FAREWELL REMARKS: "AN EMBARASSMENT"

     The original “Board Majority” comprised Williams, Frogue, Fortune, and Lorch. The roughly unified “Board Minority” comprised Hueter, Lang, and Milchiker, until Hueter’s departure at the end of 1998.

     Hueter did not seek reelection owing to serious illness. Nevertheless, until the end of her term, when she was quite debilitated, she did whatever she could to oppose the BM's disastrous agenda. She is a very nice lady. 

 11/16?/98 

  Joan Hueter’s statement (on the occasion of announcing her retirement from the board): 

     “Recent decisions made by some of the trustees have resulted in dismantling of outstanding educational and administrative structures at Irvine Valley College and Saddleback College. Nearly all of the most talented managers have left the college district because of micromanagement and poor judgment by some trustees and their appointees. The state of California is closely examining financial, educational, legal and administrative actions taken—sometimes in secret. 

     “The newly elected trustees must be prepared to demand adherence to laws and established procedures in determining appointments, assignments and curricular decisions. They must work diligently to prevent further erosion of the reputation of the colleges and morale of the staff. 

     “It is an embarrassment that this $72 million district with its excellent, dedicated faculty, gifted administrators and able students could attract only nine applicants for the position of chancellor in a nationwide search. The public must pay closer attention to the candidates for election in November to make certain that the public interest and not special interests are represented by the board.”

ANTI-CHRISTIAN DISCRIMINATION? by Chunk Wheeler

     [Believe it or not, this article was cited by Chancellor Sampson in his attempt (at the urging of Raghu P. Mathur) to discipline me for allegedly violating the district’s anti-discrimination policy in some issues of Dissent/Vine. In particular, it was cited as evidence of my discriminating against CHRISTIANS. 

     [How so? By criticizing Mathur's praise of events associated with his faculty supporters and failure to praise events of Mathurian critics, I was thus understood as saying something negative about Gary Rybold, a person who seems to view himself as representing Christianity. 

     [You be the judge concerning this “discrimination” charge.] 

[From Dissent 11, 11/10/98] 

[Originally entitled:] DISTRICT EMAIL FROLICS 

by Chunk Wheeler 

     District email messages can be fun. 

     For instance, on the 9th, Dean Kenneth “Just let me teach!” Woodward sent out an email soliciting recommendations for the temporary Lariat advisory position for the spring. “Please pass the word around,” wrote Woodward, “that the position is open.” (Recently, Woodward predicted that the Lariat would be a fine paper again. I guess he knew then that Walker was about to retire.) 

     According to the message, Union Boy has been asked by President Bullock to “convene a committee to make a recommendation.” 

     Why are they going to all this trouble just to hire a temporary replacement? You’ll recall that the last Lariat advisor, the fine Kathleen Dorantes, was fired—not by her dean, but by the president—without warning or explanation. No “search committee” was involved in replacing her either. Lee “Lawsuit” Walker just bullied himself into the position. (That, of course, was the reason Dorantes, despite her quality and popularity, was dismissed.) The Lariat has since become a kiddie paper, one that emphasizes puff pieces, seldom covers real news, and often looks as though it were assembled by five-year-olds. As you know, students have blamed the situation on the remarkable Lee “Scratch” Walker. 

     Anyway, upon receiving the solicitation, I immediately emailed Ken the following message:

     KEN: Here’s a suggestion: how about Kathleen Dorantes? I seem to recall that she did a great job. 

     It turns out that others had the same idea and sent the same suggestion to the Kenster. No doubt Union Boy will take these suggestions very seriously. Hell, maybe, in the end, Dorantes will get back the permanent position, too. 

 * * * * * 

     Raghu “the Beav” Mathur is often at his most Mathurian in email messages. Take, for instance, this message we all received (at IVC) when we returned from the weekend [the 9th]:

TO: All Faculty, Staff and Administrators 

     I would like to share with you my pleasure and enthusiasm over two great events that I witnessed last Friday. 

     First, there was a great debate between the SOCCCD Forensics Team and the Chinese Forensics Team about the equality of the sexes in the Student Services Building at IVC. [Gee, I had no idea there was a problem with sexual equality over in SSB.] Kudos to Professors Gary Rybold (IVC) and Larry Radden (SC) for organizing this wonderful educational and international experience for our students, staff and the community members. The event was well attended. This event was co-sponsored by ASIVC and the IVC Chinese Cultural Association. Our sincere appreciation goes to the sponsors. 

     Second, my family and I thoroughly enjoyed the musical play, Fiorello, last Friday. It was a fantastic and most enjoyable production. No doubt the actors, actresses, musicians and support staff displayed their talents and professionalism of the highest order. Our kudos go to Professors Ron Ellison and Suzie DuVal, and Chief Technician, Jim Rynning. Go see the play if you get a chance. It runs through December 6, 1998. 

     [Here’s the best part:] 

     These are evidently two great examples of educators who truly care about the students, the college, and the profession. I know there are others in the college who are like them. It is indeed these and such educators who deserve our affection, support, respect and gratitude for jobs well done!    

     CONGRATLATIONS.  

 Raghu P. Mathur 

 President, Irvine Valley College 

     Undoubtedly, the educators Mathur praises in his email deserve commendation. But those who know the Goo know that the last paragraph of his message is intended as a comment. It is saying that there exist educators at IVC who don’t “deserve our affection, support, and gratitude” and don’t “care about the students, the college, and the profession.” 

     Do you doubt this? Just consider the facts: first, the two faculty mentioned prominently in Goo’s message—Rybold and Ellison—are “loyal” Mathurian cronies. 

     Second, oddly, faculty who have helped to bring about other successful and noteworthy events in recent days are not mentioned, not praised. Naturally, in every case, these faculty have been critical of the union-backed Goo. 

     For instance, former school chair (of Fine Arts) Steve Rochford, music instructor, recently put on a concert, a great success. He was not mentioned in Goo’s email. And, despite, radically reduced support, Lisa Alvarez recently published a fine edition of the Ear, the community journal sponsored by the fiercely independent School of Humanities and Languages. 

     She was not mentioned. 

     Alvarez and other Mathurian critics were involved in two MECHA-related events: a fine “Day of the Dead” celebration and a Hurricane Mitch relief drive, which was spearheaded by two MECHA students. (See Irvine World News.) These faculty were not mentioned. 

     Not long ago, two Mathurian “unfriendlies,” including Jan Horn of the Recall, were promoting a high-profile “cancer walk.” Naturally, Mathur refused to allow them to advertise for the event on campus or to make use of college email. 

     As I understand it, the students responsible for the hurricane drive, too, found the Gooster uncooperative when they sought his help in advertising. 

     It doesn’t get any uglier than that. —CW

   

     [Rybold was once called out for having his student debate teams engage in Christian prayer prior to debates.]

MATHUR CENSURED FOR LYING ('94) by Chunk Wheeler

[From Dissent 11, 11/10/98] 

[Originally entitled:] 

WHAT’S ALL THIS ABOUT RAGHU MATHUR BEING CENSURED FOR LYING? 

by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

      It is often said that Irvine Valley College president Raghu Mathur is the “only person ever to have been censured for lying in the history of the college.” 

     That is correct, sir! On April 5, 1994, he was censured for lying to members of IVC’s Instructional Council on March 22, 1994 . 

     At a previous meeting, the membership of the IC had agreed not to go “outside the process” with respect to the choice of chair of the IVC presidential search committee, a choice to be made by Chancellor Lombardi, who, nevertheless, planned to base his choice on the recommendation of faculty. During an IC meeting on March 22, Raghu was asked whether, despite this agreement, he had presented a petition on behalf of a particular faculty member to the Chancellor. In fact, as he later acknowledged, he had. But, on the 22nd, he answered that he had “not forwarded” a petition to Lombardi or anyone. 

     Unfortunately for the Gooster, some members of the IC were familiar with his duplicitous ways and were not satisfied with his answer. After the meeting, they determined that, on the 21st, Raghu had indeed shown Lombardi a petition in support of his crony Craig Grossman. (Perhaps on that basis, Lombardi chose Grossman as one of two co-chairs.) 

     It was clear that Raghu had betrayed and then lied to the membership of the IC. 

     Raghu’s action was brought to light at the Instructional Council meeting of April 5. In his defense, he asserted that, though he did indeed show the petition to the chancellor, he did not “forward” it to him. Hence, he seemed to say, he did not actually lie. In legal circles, this is called making a “distinction without a difference.” Outside legal circles, it is called, “being a lying weasel,” which, of course, is unfair to weasels, who are, by all accounts, extremely direct and up-front in their dealings with others. They’re no hair-splitters. 

     Here are the relevant portions of the minutes for the April 5, 1994, IC meeting: 

INSTRUCTIONAL COUNCIL MINUTES, 

April 5,1994 

Present: Terry Burgess, Shu-Yung Chen, Bob Deegan, Pam Deegan, Ron Ellison, Dave Everett, Larry Kaufman, Kathy Paukstis, Nick Kremer, Wendy Phillips, Sue Long, Chris Riegle, Margie Luesebrink, Bob Urell, Mark McNeil, Leann Cribb [Secretary], Raghu Mathur 

INFORMATION AND REPORTS [Seven items are listed under this heading.] 

OLD BUSINESS 

[The first item concerns the “Marine Base Two Year Plan.”] 

[Second item:] Presidential Search Process: 

      Terry wrote a memo on March 23 to Chancellor Lombardi expressing the views given in Instructional Council at the March 22 meeting. He asked that the Council be given the opportunity to review the job announcement before it went out and recommended that a chair from IVC be appointed to convene the search Committee. 

     The Chancellor has since appointed Craig Grossman and Jerry Rudmann as co-chairs to convene the committee and they are in the process of setting up a meeting with the different governance groups to determine the composition of the committee. 

     Also, Terry passed around a copy of the published job announcement. The position is already being advertised and will close on May 20. 

     Wendy mentioned that she had met with Chancellor Lombardi on March 25 and he indicated to her that he had met with Raghu on Monday, March 21, and was aware of the petition Raghu had been circulating. [My emphasis.] 

     Many chairs expressed anger at hearing this because, at the Instructional Council meeting on Tuesday, March 22 [i.e., one day after Raghu’s meeting with Lombardi], Raghu had been questioned regarding this petition and had said that he had not forwarded [it] to anyone. [My emphasis.] 

     Instructional Council had agreed that no one will work outside of the IVC governance structure and agreed-upon processes. They felt that Raghu had lied to the Council because he had already spoken with the Chancellor [about the petition]. Working outside our process, by anyone, undermines all of the work the Council and the Senate does and makes IVC look bad [said members of the Council]. 

     It was generally felt that the co-chairs being appointed and the announcement going out before review by IVC is directly related to the fact that the administrators at the District think we are in chaos because people keep working outside the process. 

     Margie made a motion to censure Raghu Mathur for lying to the Instructional Council regarding the petition and the presidential search process and for misrepresenting not only Instructional Council, but also the faculty. Wendy Phillips seconded the motion. 

     Raghu stated that he did not lie to the Instructional Council. He said that he was asked if he had forwarded the petition to the Chancellor and he said he had not. He did admit, however, that he had shown the petition to Chancellor Lombardi prior to the last Instructional Council meeting. [My emphasis.] He still has the petition in his possession. 

     Raghu felt that the members of Instructional Council were making too big of a deal out of the situation. He also stated that he never said he was representing Instructional Council or the faculty; he was only representing himself and that he has every right to talk with the Chancellor. 

     Nick said that he was opposed to the motion on the floor because he did not feel this was the appropriate forum to deal with this issue. Ron also stated that he did not [see] the merit in this motion. He felt that Instructional Council was allowing this to pull the unit apart, which is exactly what we have been working against. He said that we needed to pull together and act as a unit. 

     Shu-Yung asked what it meant to censure Raghu. Margie responded by saying that she has been a long-time colleague of Raghu’s and has always treated him with respect, and hopes to continue such a relationship with him. However, this motion states that we are unhappy with his actions and wish to protest his misrepresentation of our faculty. 

     Bob Urell stated that he agreed with Raghu in that Raghu, or anyone else, does have the right to speak with the Chancellor, but that he did not agree with what Raghu had said to the Chancellor or his misrepresentation to the Council at its last meeting. 

     The question was called and the motion passed with 8 ayes, 3 noes, and 4 abstentions. [END OF QUOTATION] [My emphases throughout.] 

     Observe that, in order to conclude, regarding this episode, that Raghu lied (among other sins), one need only appeal to his own admissions. They are damning all by themselves. 

 * * * * * 

     Raghu is big on petitions. You’ll recall that it was one of Raghu’s petitions that caused the Gang of Four to appoint him IVC’s interim president in April of ’97—one month after the decision had been made to appoint then-Chancellor Lombardi to the position. Oddly, the signatories of the petition have never been made public. (Raghu’s gang of supporters are unfailingly cowardly.) —CW

"MAIM" (aka EMMA'S MODEST PROPOSAL) by Red Emma

I do believe I used a portion of this graphic to help illustrate. -RB

[From DISSENT 11, 11/10/98]

[Note: this article was cited in Sampson’s letter to Bauer in December of ’98. According to Sampson, this piece—not written by Bauer—illustrated Bauer’s violence and preoccupation with weaponry. Judge for yourself. Ultimately, several federal judges offered their opinion, and those opinions did not agree with Sampson.]

[Originally entitled:]

EMMA’S MODEST PROPOSAL by Red Emma

Sometimes, buried in my mailbox with President Mathur’s clever homages to corporate education, Red Emma discovers the odd Swiftian news report. First, academic updates from the Republic of Yugoslavia. Then, a modest proposal.

This month’s Lingua Franca reports disturbing developments from Serbia, these at the University of Belgrade. Passage of President Milosevic’s “Law on Universities” allows the government to appoint deans directly, along with members of the governing University Council, as well as “all managerial and supervisory boards at Serbian universities.” Deans and rectors, reports Lingua Franca, are now responsible for all future faculty appointments.

Sound familiar? Read on: “The text of the law was not obtained by the Serbian public until two weeks before parliament was to vote on it. Faculty and administrators at the University of Belgrade cried foul: They had been told that a new law was forthcoming but that it would be devised in collaboration with the universities. Their protests did nothing to halt the law’s progression through parliament and into effect. Approximately fifteen hundred students, professors and concerned citizens briefly took to the streets—only to be violently dispersed by police and para-police troops.”

Before I mention the Brown Act, our board’s favorite law, there’s more. Milosevic’s regime has focused its nationalist reforms on, of all places, the Philosophy Department. (I’m not making this up.) Targeted are faculty who express concern over omnicultural Serbian studies, who sign their names in English, not Cyrillic, and who demonstrated against the regime (and the war) in 1996-1997. Finally, reports Lingua Franca, “This fall, the only literature courses offered are on Slavic writers.”

Let’s see: Government interference in administration. Heavy-handed control of hiring policies. Unannounced meetings. Laws passed absent public input. Attacks on activist Philosophers. Personal vendettas against disloyal faculty. Messing with curriculum. Violating the Brown Act.

I certainly hope Raghu and Glenn are getting this down.

Finally, in the spirit of international cooperation, we at Dissent announce the founding of the Milosevic-Mathur Academic Integrity Matrix. (I couldn’t think of a more annoying business ed sounding type word than “matrix”; besides, it permits a satisfying acronym: MAIM.)

Beginning immediately, I’ll accept nominations here for candidates to an academic exchange program between IVC and University of Belgrade (home of the fighting Ethnic Cleansers!). Forward written nominations to Dissent c/o Red Emma. In the Dissent spirit of irony, efficiency and recycling, all nominations should be completed using the back of any of the recent Presidential Solicitation for Input forms. In fifty words or less, please argue why your nominated IVC administrator, trustee, or college president should be sent to Serbia and one of Milosevic’s henchpeople visit our divisive little campus in their place.

Pinochet update: It is, I am sure, no small comfort to the General, still lying flat on his back in custody, that the last lunch he ate as a free man was with Baroness Margaret Thatcher, who, along with Henry Kissinger, now limits her travels abroad. —RE

Andrew Tonkovich

Trustee race of '98

     ...Some friends had spoken of the possibility of an election party, but nothing ever materialized. But then, on this day, we heard that Pete Maddox had secured a room for the evening at the Holiday Inn on La Paz.
     Most of us realized that Maddox and [Leo] Galcher’s election chances were dicey, and so, not wishing to experience communal disappointment I suppose, some decided to monitor the election from the comfort of home. But I’d never been to this sort of party, and so, after going home and feeding my cats Buster and Sunny, I headed over to La Paz.
     The room at the Inn was set up in the usual way for such functions: tables and chairs, food, busy busboys, clinking glasses, a blaring TV displaying the vacant face of Jerry Dunphy. (Evidently, we couldn’t get OCN.) When I arrived, there were only five or six others, but soon, some 40 and 50 people were in the room.
     Later in the evening, someone said that, as you look around the room, you see the very best people of the district: people known for their integrity and decency. I could not help imagining the party for the other side: Mr. McClendon discoursing on democracy and unionism; Lee Walker in the corner, trying to think of the name of the Governor; Ken Woodward hissing and sneering and alerting others of his “Ph.D. in economics”; a bepolyestered Sherry bitching and moaning about her unparalleled labors at the Xerox machine; some of the “Scandalous Boys” leering and choking and turning red; Frogue and Mathur trading paranoid fantasies. In a room like that, no decent person could resist the urge to go postal.
     At about 9:00, we got news about the absentee votes. It wasn’t good. Pete assured us, however, that Maddox/Glacher had made their presence known at the end of the campaign, and the absentee ballots reflect the situation near the beginning of the campaign, when Padberg and Wagner had been busy sending mailers. People were reassured.
     I talked with lots of people while I nursed two over-priced beers. Eventually, I talked with Pete, who seemed hopeful but realistic about the situation. We agreed that the Maddox/Galcher team had put up a very good fight, and, if “we” lose, we will be able to hold our heads up high. I offered that you can’t really expect to compete against huge chunks of sewer money and the other side’s willingness to do whatever it takes to win, no matter how unseemly and unethical.
     One thing our union leadership and Padberg/Wagner have in common, it seems, is a willingness to embrace the notion, long discredited among civilized folk, that the “end justifies the means.” I remember challenging Sherry to acknowledge this aspect of her “leadership” at a forum shortly after the notorious ’96 campaign. (January 10, 1997.) On that occasion, she said that the leadership had to resort to unsavory campaign tactics in order to “preserve life as we know it.”
     “So,” I said, “you are saying that the end justifies the means.” “No,” she answered. “I am not saying that at all. I’m saying that we needed to take this action [using a homophobic flier] to protect life as we know it.” Oh. At the time, I got the distinct impression that the woman does not know what the phrase “end justifies the means” means.
     And Padberg and Wagner? They were a part of a larger effort by the right-winged Education Alliance to place proponents of “traditional values” and “school choice” on school boards.
     Isn’t honesty a traditional value? Well, yes, but it must take a back seat when victory for the righteous is at stake, apparently. There is, of course, no “tide of liberalism” sweeping through south county. And, as trustees, Padberg and Wagner will be able to do absolutely nothing to prevent the El Toro airport. Padberg and Wagner lied and deceived to get elected.
     Pete went to the phone and talked with a reporter at the Registrar of Voters. By then, the party was at its liveliest, but I could see that he was getting bad news.
     After a while, he walked up and turned down the TV. Everyone hushed. He explained that we had lost both races.
     He became eloquent. He spoke of the friends he had made and the quality of the people with whom he had worked during the campaign. He expressed genuine regret that we hadn’t done better.
     At one point, Pete, contradicting my philosophers, assured us that the bad guys only win in the short run; they always lose in the long run. This, of course, is false.
     Still, we can hope. Who knows? Perhaps someday Mr. P, overcome by one of his bilious thoughts, might lose control of his fancy Beemer, jump a curb, and ram the damn thing up Frogue’s a**. Williams, Fortune, Lorch, Mathur, and their sleazy union allies will then attend their hero’s funeral, where, mysteriously, they will be dispatched by a lurid gas emenating from the Great Man’s gaping mouth. After the vapors clear, peace will break out throughout the district. Once again, things will be right.

THE CHARACTER OF THE OPPOSITION by Big Bill

[This article is notable in that two of its elements—the “going postal” remark and the imaginary car crashes—were cited as evidence of my “violence” during that now-legendary meeting between me and the Chancellor (Dec. ’98). Do those elements suggest that I am violent? You be the judge.] 

[From Dissent 10, 11/9/98] [Originally entitled:] 

 

THINGS JUST KEEP ON SUCKING by Big Bill [Roy Bauer]

     Among philosophers, there have been many who, upon beholding the world, have declared it to be pretty rotten. Surely they are correct. We want to believe that Good always prevails and that Evil never ultimately triumphs, but facts keep getting in the way. 

     This insight has led some philosophers to take refuge in religion, which provides a larger picture—including God, the judge, and an afterlife. In this grand scheme, ultimately, justice and goodness emerge triumphant, though not in this life. 

     Me—I’d rather just face up to the fact that, often, things suck. They suck, and they keep on sucking. 

 * * * * * 

     On the morning of the election, I drove down to Saddleback College to distribute the latest edition of the Dissent. I started my rounds, as usual, with the 3rd floor of the library, where eager readers of the ‘Vine and the Dissent can always be found. I said hello to some friends and acquaintances. 

     I also ran into Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli, a non-friend, who regarded me blankly. We exchanged curt “hellos,” the kind that mean “f*ck you.” 

     When I headed back to my car—a Toyota—I noticed a stunning new European sports car schussing about in the parking lot. “Serious bucks,” I thought. “Wow.” As the car came nearer, I realized that it was driven by none other than Mr. “PF,” one of the more odious members of the union’s Old Guard. (I could be wrong; I only saw him for a moment.) He seemed to smirk at me as he drove past. 

     Mr. PF is a member of the most conspicuously abominable group within the union: the “Scandalous Boys” [Fine Arts Division]. These are deeply troubled men who regularly get into serious trouble on the job. (Can you say, “flagrante delicto”?) Naturally, the union leadership are always there to bail them out. 

     On several occasions, this particular Scand-Boy has left me messages in which, with a voice that simultaneously quakes and leers, he hurls insult after insult in an apparent uncontrollable frenzy. (I think he may be choking himself somehow. It’s pretty disgusting.) 

     Here’s what he said during one of these performances, which was preserved as voice-mail: 

      Hey Roy. [Mr. PF], Saddleback College. Just thought I’d congratulate you for being demoted [a reference to the recent abolition of School Chairs by the Board] and heading back to the classroom, which is what you’re supposed to be doing anyway. Weren’t you hired as a faculty member instead of going around pointing fingers at people? Yeah, I remember a meeting that I was at where you were pointing fingers using the word “that’s immoral.” I guess that’s what you philosophers feel you can do. You can make moral adjudications about other people’s behavior. Meanwhile, that’s OK for you—that’s OK for you to join a group of people who, uh, try to make a claim that a board member is anti-Semitic, but when someone decides to use political free speech by sending out a brochure [namely, the homophobic “same sex” flier]—and I didn’t even agree with the brochure—that’s immoral because it’s homophobic. 

     —Oh, that’s right, the other word you use is “logic.” That’s very logical, isn’t it? [Mr. PF begins to have trouble breathing.] Isn’t it interesting how philosophers always have the time to make moral judgments about other people’s behavior when they don’t look in their own backyard? Oh, that’s right. 

    That word “logic” comes up again. I just remembered: one of the reasons why you were on the other side is because you were a school chair and you were trying to protect your own backyard. [For the record: I began to criticize the union in November of ‘96, 6 months before becoming chair of my school—a job I had for less than two months.] That’s very logical. And then, when somebody stands up at another meeting and makes a racial slur [huh?], well, that’s very logical according to you. That’s what you said at the meeting. That was OK. That’s not immoral. That’s logical! Oh, I get it! [He breathes very heavily now.] Gee I’m learning about logic without even having to take your class! 

     Let’s move on. Uh, since I can’t find anybody on this campus to, a, stand up for what they believe in [Mr. P’s voice now quavers uncontrollably], since you seem to be able to do that, uh, why don’t you make an agreement with me to meet in a public debate over all of these issues? 

     It’s been five years of HELL, and it’s come to an end. And, ya know the final logical thing? [In a low, conspiratorial voice:] Here’s what it is [Mr. PF breathes harder]: IT’S CALLED SCOREBOARD!

     Good night now. 

     Wow. Anyway, it was, I think, this remarkable and theatrical fellow—Mr. PF—whom I saw, or thought I saw, driving the snazzy sports car. 

     “How perfect,” I thought. “A symbol of my union: a degenerate behind the wheel of a car that my yearly salary could barely pay for.” 

 * * * * * 

     Some friends had spoken of the possibility of an election party, but nothing ever materialized. But then, on this day, we heard that Pete Maddox had secured a room for the evening at the Holiday Inn on La Paz. 

     Most of us realized that Maddox and Galcher’s election chances were dicey, and so, not wishing to experience communal disappointment I suppose, some decided to monitor the election from the comfort of home. But I’d never been to this sort of party, and so, after going home and feeding my cats Buster and Sunny, I headed over to La Paz. 

     The room at the Inn was set up in the usual way for such functions: tables and chairs, food, busy busboys, clinking glasses, a blaring TV displaying the vacant face of Jerry Dunphy. (Evidently, we couldn’t get OCN.) When I arrived, there were only five or six others, but soon, some 40 and 50 people were in the room. 

     Later in the evening, someone said that, as you look around the room, you see the very best people of the district: people known for their integrity and decency. I could not help imagining the party for the other side: Mr. McClendon discoursing on democracy and unionism; Lee Walker in the corner, trying to think of the name of the Governor; Ken Woodward hissing and sneering and alerting others of his “Ph.D. in economics”; a bepolyestered Sherry bitching and moaning about her unparalleled labors at the Xerox machine; some of the “Scandalous Boys” leering and choking and turning red; Frogue and Mathur trading paranoid fantasies. In a room like that, no decent person could resist the urge to go postal. 

     At about 9:00, we got news about the absentee votes. It wasn’t good. Pete assured us, however, that Galcher and Maddox had made their presence known at the end of the campaign, and the absentee ballots reflect the situation near the beginning of the campaign, when Padberg and Wagner had been busy sending mailers. People were reassured. 

     I talked with lots of people while I nursed two over-priced beers. Eventually, I talked with Pete, who seemed hopeful but realistic about the situation. We agreed that the Maddox/Galcher team had put up a very good fight, and, if “we” lose, we will be able to hold our heads up high. I offered that you can’t really expect to compete against huge chunks of sewer money and the other side’s willingness to do whatever it takes to win, no matter how unseemly and unethical. 

     One thing our union leadership and Padberg/Wagner have in common, it seems, is a willingness to embrace the notion, long discredited among civilized folk, that the “end justifies the means.” I remember challenging Sherry to acknowledge this aspect of her “leadership” at a forum shortly after the notorious ’96 campaign. (January 10, 1997.) On that occasion, she said that the leadership had to resort to unsavory campaign tactics in order to “preserve life as we know it.” 

     “So,” I said, “you are saying that the end justifies the means.” “No,” she answered. “I am not saying that at all. I’m saying that we needed to take this action [using a homophobic flier] to protect life as we know it.” Oh. At the time, I got the distinct impression that the woman does not know what the phrase “end justifies the means” means. 

     And Padberg and Wagner? They were a part of a larger effort by the right-winged Education Alliance to place proponents of “traditional values” and “school choice” on school boards. 

     Isn’t honesty a traditional value? Well, yes, but it must take a back seat when victory for the righteous is at stake, apparently. There is, of course, no “tide of liberalism” sweeping through south county. And, as trustees, Padberg and Wagner will be able to do absolutely nothing to prevent the El Toro airport. Padberg and Wagner lied and deceived to get elected. 

     Pete went to the phone and talked with a reporter at the Registrar of Voters. By then, the party was at its liveliest, but I could see that he was getting bad news. 

     After a while, he walked up and turned down the TV. Everyone hushed. He explained that we had lost both races. 

     He became eloquent. He spoke of the friends he had made and the quality of the people with whom he had worked during the campaign. He expressed genuine regret that we hadn’t done better. 

     At one point, Pete, contradicting my philosophers, assured us that the bad guys only win in the short run; they always lose in the long run. This, of course, is false. 

     Still, we can hope. Who knows? Perhaps someday Mr. P, overcome by one of his bilious thoughts, might lose control of his fancy Beemer, jump a curb, and ram the damn thing up Frogue’s ass. Williams, Fortune, Lorch, Mathur, and their sleazy union allies will then attend their hero’s funeral, where, mysteriously, they will be dispatched by a lurid gas emenating from the Great Man’s gaping mouth. After the vapors clear, peace will break out throughout the district. Once again, things will be right. 

 * * * * * 

     The next morning, I happened to arrive at the parking lot outside A100 at IVC at the same time as three friends. After exchanging forlorn looks and discussing our miserable situation, three of us headed to the administration building to do some “victory laps.” As we walked, one friend told me of her husband’s habit of calling neighborhood children “rat bastards.” “Who’s at the door, honey?” “Oh, nobody. Just some o’ those rat bastards.” 

     Now, I may believe in animal rights, but I also believe in the power of language, and “rat bastards” is a great phrase. I was determined to use it ASAP. 

     As we did our victory laps inside, we noticed Bobbi Weiner, whose desk is just outside Raghu’s office. We walked over to her and talked. Just then, Raghu walked past—he was returning from a visit to the bathroom. He entered his lair. We decided to leave Bobbi to her work, but, on a whim, I told Bobbi that, before leaving, I wanted to say one thing. Thereupon, loudly, I said, “Rat Bastard!” Bobbi cringed. I assured her that I wasn’t talking about anyone in particular. 

     I went to my office. After a while, I got a nasty telephone call from some sneering, bleating lout—it was, I think, Mr. P! Three seconds into his harangue, I simply hung up on him. 

     I checked my email. Someone had sent me the following message: 

SUBJECT: THANKS A MILLION! 

DATE: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 

FROM: GUEST 

(GUEST@SM.SOCCCD.CC.CA.US) 

ORGANIZATION: 

South Orange County Community College District 

TO: rbauer@ivc.cc.ca.us 

 Roy, Thanks a million for all the help you gave us in wining [sic] the board elections. Without you and the Vine [sic], I beleive [sic] we would not have won. So thanks from the dark side of the campus.

     Members of the Sherlockian Society will note that the author of this message is both an illiterate and a coward. This we may deduce from his numerous misspellings, his poor grammar, and the fact that, in order to avoid detection, he actually went all the way to the library to send his message. 

     He may be an illiterate and a coward, but he’s a winner. —BB

THE CRISIS AT IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE by Red Emma

[From Dissent 9, 11/2/98] 

Understanding the Crisis at Irvine Valley College 

by RED EMMA, instructor 

     Many IVC students and some faculty are still confused about the handmade signs posted on campus (“Recall Frogue” and “Mathur Must Go!”), recent news stories and letters to the editor regarding the recall of Trustee Frogue and the appointment of Raghu Mathur as president of this community college. There is reason for their confusion, in no small part resulting from the unwillingness of many to point to the unhappy direction suggested in the actions of the SOCCCD board, Mr. Frogue, the faculty union which elected and supports the board majority and their lackey, President Mathur. These, then, are my own complaints against this group, framed in a wider, national context which I see as a right-wing, corporate attack on public education by people who imagine that, yes, schools should be “run like businesses.” 

      1. They have attacked shared governance, the statewide policy of power sharing among students, faculty, staff and administration. Their attack sets a precedent for further undermining academic workplace self-government statewide. This is Frogue’s self-stated mission. 

      2. They have tolerated, even encouraged, anti-Semitism and homophobia in the auspices of an intellectual community. They have equated the value of a wacky seminar with intellectual discourse. It’s instructive to note the two minority groups targeted: gays and lesbians (by the teacher’s union) and Jews (by Mr. Frogue). Attacking the civil rights of politically weak homosexuals seems to fly in South Orange County, or at least Ms. Fortune and her colleagues thought it did. 

      3. They have successfully co-opted a labor union local. A small anti-democratic minority created a situation where labor colludes with management, prevents its own members from voting and funds candidates who pretend not to understand what’s going on, all the while lobbying for the perceived interests of a small power elite. 

      4. They have created a political opportunity, a testing ground for activism by far-right groups. The Christian Coalition sought to find a way into Orange County education politics and now has: Board members actually attended a meeting with Christian Coalition leadership, activists who oppose women’s rights, promote hate and anti-Semitism and homophobia, all in the name of establishing a religious state.

      5. They have promoted the corporatization and further privatization of the academy—changing IVC to IBM as it were, trying to transform public colleges into trade technical institutes “managed” to meet the perceived needs of industry. 

      6. They have championed the ghettoization of faculty. They have tried to turn full-time faculty into “employees,” exploited the slave labor of adjunct faculty and proposed turning real classrooms into so-called “distance-learning”; in other words, television shows. 

      7. They have marginalized students, turning them into political numbers valuable only as products to the corporations it is presumed (absent any evidence) will someday hire them. 

      8. They have limited expression, inquiry and engagement in the political process, designing rules suggesting a suburban homeowners association and not a dynamic college environment. 

      9. They have spent district money defending themselves against much of the above, including the recall and separate lawsuits brought by both students and faculty. 

      10. They have lied to the community which they claim to represent. They twice violated the Brown Act. Recently a mailer on behalf of two union-sponsored candidates bragged that they oppose the El Toro airport. In fact, these two have done nothing to oppose the airport and of course, their position on the airport has almost no relevance to the administration of SOCCCD. When asked on a recent OCN debate regarding their stands on the recall of Mr. Frogue, all either pretended not to know the problem or condemned intolerance in general terms. Similarly, IVC President Mathur, in a recent Irvine World News interview, questioned the well-document charges against Frogue. 

     What’s instructive here is that these actions together reflect a wider trend. Our district represents a microcosm of what’s happening across the state and the nation. Sadly, the crisis at SOCCCD has received almost no state or national media attention since Mr. Frogue’s proposed seminar. Why not? It is in fact because in its way, this crisis nearly perfectly represents all the coordinated attacks on public education: the attack on intellectual integrity, the attack on labor and student rights, the promotion of corporate hegemony and so on. 

     Because our crisis is in fact so wonderfully representative of a single, connected trend it’s easy to pretend not to see that Big Picture. It’s easy for media to pretend that its readers won’t get it. It’s easy for students and teachers not to understand that as it happens here, it is happening everywhere. 

     We can, of course, end it here. We can write letters, vote out Mr. Frogue, democratize a union, replace President Mathur, restore shared governance; in short, we can speak truth to power and put IVC on the map as a place where supporters of public education took on the privatizers...and won. —RE

Andrew Tonkovich