THE 1998 IVC ACCREDITATION WHITE-WASH

     Among the many chapters of the Raghu P. Mathur saga is his and his friends’ efforts to submit rosy and bowdlerized reports to the agency charged with assessing Irvine Valley College. 

     In the Spring of ’97, not long after Mathur’s illegal appointment as interim President of IVC, Professor Rebecca Welch, who had been serving as the chair of the college’s accreditation “self-study,” resigned in protest over Mathur. 

    At some point thereafter, Mathur appointed his crony (and union Old Guard pal) Ray Chandos as chair. By law, the chair of this committee is jointly decided by the Academic Senate and the college President. The senate held a vote in which Connie Spar was chosen by a wide margin over Ray. This did not stop Mathur from appointing Chandos as head of the Accred self-study. 

     What follows are bits of some news articles and then an article from the Dissent. 

4/2/98 

Controversy arises over Chandos appointment 

By Jason Chittenden Staff Writer [The Voice; IVC's student newspaper] 

     Contributing to the tension on campus, Irvine Valley College President Raghu Mathur appointed Ray Chandos as Accreditation Self-Study Chair on March 23 despite the Academic Senate's vote of 15-4 in support of Connie Spar for the position…. 

4/21/98 

College: Harsh report softened? EDUCATION: Committee members say south- county accreditation report was altered. 

By KIMBERLY KINDY 

The Orange County Register 

     Harsh criticisms directed at the embattled South Orange County Community College trustees were removed from a draft report prepared for Irvine Valley College's accreditation review, according to district records released Monday…. 

     [Kindy's article included the following comparison: Original draft vs. Chandos' draft:]

HOW DRAFT REPORT DIFFERS FROM ORIGINAL 

ORIGINAL 

"General community perception of the current board majority holds that (it) ... is not an 'independent body' but rather operates at the whims of a small vocal group of faculty, notably the faculty union leadership." 

DRAFT 

"...the board is an independent policy-making board capable of reflecting the public interests..." 

ORIGINAL 

"...this board has repeatedly violated the California Open Meetings Act ... such repeated violations have resulted in additional lawsuits now underway and in a general breakdown of confidence." 

 

DRAFT 

Statement was omitted from draft report. 

ORIGINAL 

"In the past, the board has interviewed the chancellor's final recommended candidates. More recently the board has instead directed the selection process itself..." 

DRAFT 

"The governing board selects the college president under the employment procedures for executive positions, and delegates the evaluation of the president to the district chancellor." 

ORIGINAL 

"The president (Irvine Valley College President Raghu Mathur) makes every effort to review budgets and expenditures, though his unfamiliarity with college-wide budgeting and state fiscal concerns requires him to rely extensively on the advice of others, notably, specific board members' preferences..." 

 

DRAFT

"The president is well informed of state allocations and other income projections early in the budget development cycle." [End] 

4/22/98 

College District's Self-Evaluation Draft Draws Fire for Its Omissions

• Education: Critics say items critical of South Orange County trustees were omitted from the faculty administration report being sent to accreditation agency. 

By ROBERT OURLIAN 

TIMES STAFF WRITER 

     …Critics of the majority of the Board of Trustees charge that a draft report of a "self-evaluation" prepared by faculty and administrators was altered to remove lengthy passages critical of trustees. 

     The editing—while not illegal—shows an attempt to cover up problems at Irvine Valley College, one of the campuses administered by the South Orange district, critics charged….

4/25/98 

College District Not at Risk, Trustees Say 

• Education: leaders offer assurances on quality and accreditation after the latest flap, over criticism edited from a report. 

By ROBERT OURLIAN 

TIMES STAFF WRITER 

     Leaders of the South Orange County Community College District hastened to offer assurances Friday that educational quality is being maintained and that accreditation is not at risk as students threatened to leave the district to attend other colleges...Criticism is intensifying over faculty contentions that a draft college accreditation report on the school system's administration was "sanitized" when criticism of trustees was removed. But administrators said the process has retained its integrity.... 

5/1/98 

OC Weekly 

A Clockwork Orange 

by Matt Coker 

     ERASER HEAD: Stinging criticism of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees was reportedly removed from a self-evaluation prepared by a committee of faculty students and staff for Irvine Valley College's accreditation review, it was disclosed on April 20. Key passages detailed board micromanagement and violations of the state open-meeting law. Language blaming the district's state financial-watch status on the board's refusal to heed the advice of its own financial experts was apparently excised. The Irvine Valley professor who headed the eight-member committee reportedly said he edited many statements out of the report for length's sake. But it wasn't short enough for trustees, who complained the sanitized version was still too critical of them. Accreditation officials invited committee members to send them an alternative report if they believe the final version is inaccurate.... 

 * * * * * 

From Dissent 6, 4/27/98 

[UNTITLED—“CHANDOS & Press conference”] 

BIG BILL REPORTS… 

By Big Bill 

      I went to the district press conference on the 24th of April, but I was late, ‘cuz I got a speeding ticket. The cop was nice—she warmly thanked me for my cooperation. And then she handed me a big fat ticket. 

     So I entered the smallish Chancellor’s Conference Room at about 12:10—just as Williams was reading his “statement” defending IVC Accreditation Chair Ray Chandos’ edits of the assembled drafts from the various IVC standards committees. The resulting document, submitted to the Board on Monday (4/20), had received very negative media coverage throughout the week. 

     For those who don’t know, I should explain that Raghu Mathur appointed his pal Ray to the office of Chair of Accreditation against the recommendation of the IVC Academic Senate, which preferred the excellent and non-partisan Connie S. (Connie received 15 votes, Ray 4.) As usual, the Ragshire Cat dismisses the charge that he has once again ignored the Senate’s input despite the law, which, in this instance, states that the selection of an accreditation chair shall be made by the President and the Senate together. Indeed, Mr. Goo had chosen Ray and pronounced him “accreditation chair” in a memo sent [to the Senate president] before senators had a chance to vote on the two candidates. 

     Many of us fully expected Chair Chandos to water down specifically those elements of the ten committee drafts that were critical of Mathur and the Board Majority; after all, Ray has been an intimate member of a union leadership group, a gang that has declared, through its actions, contempt for any standards of decency and fair play. But few of us expected Ray’s fix to be so blatant, so naked, for Ray has sanitized the drafts of any significant criticisms of his friends. 

     Consider, for example, the job he did on the draft submitted by the standard 10 (governance) committee. What follows is the committee’s work and then Ray’s bowdlerized version: 

The committee’s verbiage: 

General community perception (10.2) of the current Board majority holds that this Board of Trustees is not an “independent body” but rather operates at the whims of a small vocal group of faculty, notably the faculty union leadership. Further, as local press, lawsuits (10.3), and other documents attest (10.4), decisions made by this Board are often not seen as being made in the “public interest,” but rather are viewed [sentence cut off in duplication] manner. The unfortunate national and international attention brought on by recent Board actions is not believed to be in the best interest of the communities served. While the Board policies and state laws (10.5) dictate their need to “post agendas, establish a protocol for public comment on agendized and non-agendized items,” and to preserve minutes of all Board meetings, since December 16, 1996, this Board has been found to violate those requirements, necessitating “cure and correct” actions, and resulting in legal judgments against the district issued by the Superior Court of Orange County (10.6). Further, pursuant to seeking legal remedies, community members and counsel representing district employees have repeatedly requested relevant documents, particularly minutes of closed session meetings--which this Board does not make or retain as required by law. As the referenced lawsuits indicate, this Board has repeatedly violated the California Open Meetings Act by discussing in closed session matters expressly forbidden by law, and has conducted employee evaluations without the requisite prior notification of the individuals. Such repeated violations have resulted in additional lawsuits now underway and in a general breakdown of confidence and “trust across stakeholders’ groups” (10.8, p. 6). 

Ray’s “edited” version: 

The above mechanisms insure that the board is an independent policy-making board capable of reflecting the public interest in its activities and decisions, with continuity in membership and staggered terms of office. 

—Wow. 

[Inserted: from LA TIMES April 22, 1998: 

The Accreditation commission is aware of the district’s problems—fiscal woes, a drain of top administrators, infighting over institutional governance and a trustee recall campaign—and will not be deceived “for three nanoseconds” by an inaccurate self-study report, [Judith Watkins of the WASC] said.] 

     This, of course, is only one example. There are many others. Nor are the “expurgations,” additions, and modifications confined to Standard 10, for other standards chairs have complained bitterly about Ray’s ham-fisted “edits” of the committee drafts. (For instance, Ray deleted a reference in the standard 3 draft to “low morale” among employees despite overwhelming evidence of enervation and demoralization provided by college and district surveys.) 

     Ray and his crew of defenders—all of them FA-affiliated—have suggested that the committee drafts sometimes expressed idiosyncratic political views of individual faculty. Ray, they argue, merely sought to shorten the drafts by eliminating undocumented claims and elements that did not respond directly to the appropriate questions. Clearly, however, many of the deleted elements were directly responsive to the questions, were well-documented, and (for what it’s worth) reflected the views of many at IVC. Further, as the above example illustrates, Ray added rosy elements that did not originate with, and that even contradicted, the original committee drafts. 

     Way to go, Ray. 

     ANYWAY, I went to this press conference on the 24th. Three reporters had showed: Bob O. of the Times, Laura H. of the Irvine World News, and Bob S. of the Lariat. Williams was the only Trustee in attendance. Pam Zanelli and her hair were there, as were Kathie Hodge, Chandos, Dixie B. [I think], Dean Wormer of Faber, and Glenn Roquemore (interim IVC VP of instruction, and former IVC Accred. chair). 

     Williams’ reading of his (entertainingly underwhelming) Statement was followed by a few Q&As, but then there was a brief lull, and so I made my move: I said that I was there representing the SOCCCD Dissent and the IVC ‘Vine, and then I started to ask a question; but before I could complete it, Williams’ said he did not recognize me as a member of the media. I asked him why. He said, “‘Cuz,” or something equally erudite. 

     Not satisfied with that answer, I returned to my question; I asked, “In the case of Standard 10, Ray deleted the committee’s reference to the Board’s violations of the Brown Act; are you saying that this fact is not relevant to ‘governance’ or that it is not documented?”—or something to that effect. Williams sought to obscure or block my question through the clever gambit of loudly objecting as I spoke. I almost said, “I know you are but what am I?” Instead, I asked, “Are you gonna throw me out?” Williams said nothing. I said nothing. Everybody said nothing. 

     The other reporters eventually asked more questions. Bob Ourlian (who had read the original standard 10 draft plus Ray’s edit) noted that all of the deleted verbiage criticized the Board, and none of it praised the Board. He asked whether that pattern were coincidental. “Is that what you’re saying?” he asked. 

     The response, I think, was something like, “Bla bla bla bla.” 

     At some point, Glenn Roquemore seized upon the notion of “balance.” He said that it was Ray’s job to seek a balance, not just to present the views of one “side.” Eventually, Ourlian responded to Glenn’s theme by asking whether Glenn was saying this: to be objective, the report must have an equal measure of praise and of criticism of the board. (Later, Ourlian and I joked: “It’s a good thing these people weren’t in charge at Nuremberg: ‘Sure, these Nazi fellas did some bad things, but, hey, there were some real positives, too.’”) 

     Before Glenn could hiss “yes,” Kathie jumped in to say no; that’s not what they meant at all, she said, though, in truth, she did not shed much light on what they had in mind by this “balance” talk. 

     After a few minutes, Ourlian pointed at me and said, “Well, if Roy can’t ask questions, can I at least ask him some questions?” And he did. 

     He asked, I think, how faculty at IVC view Ray’s “edit” job. I seized the opportunity to say everything I was going to say anyway, to the horror of Williams, Zanelli, Wormer, et al. I explained that every member of the faculty to whom I have spoken thinks that Ray’s appointment was purely political. Ray is simply doing the bidding of Raghu and the Board Majority, thereby quidding the union’s pro quo. I described the dubious process by which Ray was chosen as Accred. Chair and of the resignation, 11 months ago, of the original chair, Rebecca Welch. (Rebecca had written a memo stating that, with Raghu as president, she no longer had faith in the integrity of the accreditation process.) I added that I disliked Zanelli’s ‘do, which seemed to threaten to sprout dangerously in all directions. 

     Bob S. seemed to be shocked--shocked!--at these allegations. If these charges--in particular, the “charge” that Chandos was appointed in the manner I described and that Chandos’ editing reflected bias--can be verified, he said, well, that’s pretty serious. 

     Eventually, Laura H. expressed her utter bewilderment at President Mathur’s appointment of Ray Chandos as chair of accreditation given IVC’s difficult political atmosphere. Why did he not confer with the Senate? Why did he appoint someone who, obviously, would be viewed as biased? 

     “Bla bla bla bla,” they said. 

[INSERTED: from The Register April 21, 1998: “As a student, I am very concerned that the accreditation team will potentially find major discrepancies between how the final reports portray the college vs. the actual condition of the college,” said Debie Burbridge, who attends Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges.] 

     It is possible that Williams and his allies scheduled the press conference in part because the “protest” movement at IVC is rapidly gaining momentum. Not only have three successful “marches” been staged, but students have begun to express concerns about IVC’s accreditation status in classes and in the student newspaper, the Voice. 

     I have been told that, during President Mathur’s recent visit to the School of Physical Sciences and Basketweaving, he characterized faculty and staff who have participated in the marches as “despicable.” 

     Now, some say that “despicable” is Daffy Duck’s tag line, but I am among those who demur; surely everyone knows that it is the endearing tag phrase of Sylvester Cat (contra-Tweety-Bird). Dissent would like to get this straight, so we would appreciate any help in this regard.

How I Joined the Union, Part III—OR Red Emma and the Temple of Doom

How I Joined the Union, Part III

—OR 

Red Emma and the Temple of Doom

See PART II
See PART I

By Red Emma

DISSENT 6 - April 27, 1998

Regular Dissent readers might assume editor Big Bill's [Roy Bauer's] colorful illustrations and animated journalistic style represent editorial vox hyperbolas. This is satire, right? Exaggerated, if necessary, fun-poking at people in power? Is it possible, for instance, that proceedings of F.A. representative council meetings, occur as recorded by B.B.?

Red Emma reports that, Big's creative powers notwithstanding, he is not applying them to accounts of the union's monthly organizational trysts appearing in this journal.

Brothers and sisters, Emma testifies to the verity of past reports, at least if last week's meeting is any indication.

Newly elected by the Adjunct Organizing Group (AOG) as your adjunct union rep (in fact, the only dues paying local member), Red attended the Monday meeting prepared to be seated and ask three questions: (1) What are my duties and privileges? (2) Why isn't the union actively recruiting part-timers? (3) How will much-touted (by Ray Chandos) part-time contract gains (interview guarantees and health benefits) be facilitated?

Introducing myself to Madame Chair [Sherry M-W?], I was informed that I was not in fact the union rep and that, contrary to advice offered by Chandos via another adjunct (Chandos will not call the Red line), election of adjunct union reps would in fact occur along with everybody else--nominations deadline Tuesday, 5 p.m.

Mr. Kopfstein

Eager to oblige, Red Emma dutifully wrote a letter nominating himself. When Elections Chair Bob Kopfstein arrived about forty minutes into the meeting, it was handed him with a flourish and, with the arrival of R. Chandos, the elections agenda item proceeded. I complained politely that my campus union rep wouldn't call me back and asked how election of part-timers might occur absent protocol or notification. Chandos repeated misinformation about a separate election. This time, both Madame Chair and Prof. Kopfstein interrupted, informing the meeting simultaneously that "one" and "two" positions would be filled by votes of dues paying members. After discussion about old by-laws (which suggest unwieldy and frighteningly democratic proportional representation) and the profound absence of any new bylaws, M. Chair and B. Kopfstein seemed to disagree to disagree, leaving all unclear whether one or two positions would be filled for over 700 adjunct faculty at two colleges.

I am not making this up. Red Emma swears on the graves of the Homestead martyrs and his jar of cheese Ragu.

Red then invited someone, anyone, of the twenty assembled union members to speak to part-timers at our next AOG meeting on Friday, May 8, 12:30 pm--an invitation met with silence.

Finally, I asked how part-timers applying for district jobs could know if their now contractually mandated "automatic" job interview (subject to mysterious and undefined requirements) would be granted by SOCCCD Personnel and hiring committees.

"What," I asked Madame Chair, "would you do if you'd worked as a part-timer for five years and now applied for a job with the district? Would you include that info in a cover letter or otherwise notify them of your conviction that you met the requirements?"

My mere mention of Personnel was met with much rolling of eyes and giggling. But when I asked what the union would do to intervene on behalf of this particular segment of its constituency, the answer came that the contract did not kick in till July 1, conveniently past deadlines for many current openings and perhaps full-time positions for quite awhile.

Red attempted to raise related issues, but had apparently exceeded his time, despite the singular precedent-smashing attendance of a part-timer faculty rep. Red's final, desperate plea for a union emissary to the AOG meeting this time was answered in the person of Prof. Ken Woodward of Saddleback.

Red Emma, in the flesh

At the meeting's conclusion, Red approached Prof. Woodward to thank him and confirm his attendance at the May 8 meeting. Woodward again agreed to attend, but candidly offered that "you should form your own unit because most full-timers are not concerned with part-time issues," a sentiment echoed by Madame Chair, who joined us briefly in what was for me, the afternoon's apogee. The honesty of these two union leaders seemed a welcome, if confusing, respite from the obfuscation and bafflement (to me) of the meeting itself.

Analysis: Part-timers have not been recruited, it seems, because they were not welcome. Despite being represented and bargained on behalf of, they were not the concern of a local dominated by full-timers.

There you have it. Almost. Two days later, Red Emma received a call from Elections Chair Kopfstein, who found no record of Red's membership, a fact which, if true, would correctly disqualify Red from running for anything. "Your name does not appear on my list," he said.

Red Emma supplied Prof. Kopfstein the necessary assurances and he apologized for any confusion. Red asked how many candidates there were for the job. He replied, "one." "Nobody from Saddleback?" asked Red. "Yes, one from Saddleback. One from IVC."

As Elections Chair, it seems Kopfstein bravely elected to arrange for two positions (recall the disagreement with Madame Chair). The ballot offers one candidate (me) for one position at IVC and the election involves exactly one qualified voter (also me) to elect him. Ain't democracy grand?

Meantime, Diane Fernandes-Lisi, CTA Staff Consultant, offered to help part-timers work to secure their own separate dues-paying bargaining unit (again, me). Red Emma assumes Prof. Woodward will advise on May 8 how to remove ourselves from his unit, even as Red Emma appears to be on the verge of an astounding elections victory finally guaranteeing adjunct faculty representation in same.

Lesson: Join the union!

* * *

Finally: It's backlash time. The opposition, such as it is, is summoning all of its modest energy toward pulling down student protest fliers, distributing their own giddily oblivious circulars and, contrary to their man Mathur's saucy memo, talking campus politics (yikes!) in class!

That's predictable and, in fact, welcome. What's alarming is that some part-timers, now apparently disturbed by any political "disturbance" (where have they been for 18 months?), seem to have taken Mathur's thoughtfully intimidating memo to heart and further distanced themselves from students and their teacherly responsibility to act, to speak, to teach. Instead of seeing this injustice for what it is, they seem to blame those trying to fight it. Folks, Red Emma reminds you that this is not only an IVC issue. The ghettoization of adjunct faculty, the corporatization of the academy and the "temp"-ization of labor is a trend, along with "downsizing" and the exoticization of technology. This is not going away. Who's going to fight it? Who's going to organize? If not part-time teachers, who? If not now, when?


The union leadership does not want to explain to the membership why it is revising the bylaws only a year after the last (so-called) revision. (You will recall that Dissent has raised this issue in the past.) During the last Rep. Council meeting, however, faced with a direct question, Sherry at last provided a clear explanation: it is being forced to make changes by the CTA, for the CTA has judged that our so-called bylaws contain many illegal elements, a point that critics of the leadership have made repeatedly to no avail.

The ratification election is rapidly approaching. Predictably, the leadership has decided not to provide copies of the current bylaws to members (in preparation for that event). Further, it has decided not to hold a meeting to explain the revisions to the membership. Finally, for now, it won’t show anyone the revisions.

No problem; WE’LL do it.... –RE