Thursday, September 17, 1998

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


From the ‘Vine 10, October 6, 1998

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

Concerns the BROWN ACT cases.

DECLARATION OF TERRENCE J. BURGESS

I, TERRENCE J. BURGESS, declare as follows:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executed this 11th day of September, 1998 at Irvine, California.
(Signed)
Terrence J. Burgess


DECLARATION OF PAMELA F. DEEGAN

I, PAMELA F. DEEGAN, declare as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executed this 17[th] day of September, 1998 at Irvine, California.
(Signed)
Pamela F. Deegan


DECLARATION OF ROBERT D. LOEFFLER

I, ROBERT D. LOEFFLER, declare as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executed this 8th day of September, 1998 at Irvine, California.
(Signed)
Robert D. Loeffler

Wednesday, September 16, 1998

WILLIAMS TO LANG: “STOP LIVING IN AN IVORY CASTLE!”--plus THE GREAT GUN DEBATE!

Dave Lang sharing the spotlight with convicted felone Mike Carona
From the ‘Vine (#7), 9/16/98
It is possible that this is the penultimate draft, not the draft ultimately published.

BOARD MEETING, SEPT. 14

by Chunk Wheeler

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

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

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

Lang and God:

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

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

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

Accreditation reports:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Frogue exhibits paranoia:

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

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

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

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

Give us our new guns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on.

Toxic waste:

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

Trustee misconduct?

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

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

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

Lariat bombshell:

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

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

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

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


Reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new chancellor steps out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so fast! Rethinking fall opening

Today's report  — up again USC reverses robust fall reopening plans, asks students to stay home for online classes LA Times  ...

Invited to IVC—this time a notorious admitted HOMOPHOBE

—Conservative radio host, Michael Reagan


Here at IVC, natch, we have an Accounting Department. It happens to support something called the Guaranteed Accounting Program: GAP4+1.

According to the department website,

This unique pathway program — a partnership between Irvine Valley College (IVC) and Cal State Fullerton (CSUF) — will enable you to graduate with a bachelor’s degree in four years and a master’s degree with one more additional year (thus GAP4+1).

Among the Master's degrees available through the program, we're told, are "Accountancy and Finance; Taxation; or Accountancy."


We're also told that "The number of students accepted into this program in any one year is limited so be sure to apply early."


Great. The early bird gets the worm.


Evidently, the good people of the GAP4+1 program have recently seen fit to invite someone to speak at Irvine Valley College (in late April): Michael Reagan.




The Republican Party of OC just loves IVC (from their website)

That's right. They've invited Reagan family embarrassment Michael, a man of, let's face it, little or no distinction.


He was expelled from his High School and he washed-out of college. Eventually, he went into clothing sales.


In those early years, he made some curious friends:

In 1965, the FBI warned Ronald Reagan that in the course of an organized crime investigation it had discovered his son Michael was associating with the son of crime boss Joseph Bonanno, which would have become a campaign issue had it been publicly known. Reagan thanked the FBI and said he would phone his son to discreetly discontinue the association. (From Wikipedia's Michael Reagan.)

[“F.B.I. agents in Phoenix made an unexpected discovery: According to records, ‘the son of Ronald Reagan was associating with the son of Joe Bonnano [sic].’ That is, Michael Reagan, the adopted son of Reagan and Ms. Wyman, was consorting with Bonanno’s son, Joseph Jr. The teenagers had bonded over their shared love of fast cars and acting tough.” ... "Joseph Jr. was not involved in organized crime, but he was spending time at his father’s home... [I]n October 1964, he had been arrested in connection with the beating of a Scottsdale, Ariz., coffee shop manager. ... Following routine procedure, F.B.I. agents in Phoenix asked agents in Los Angeles to interview Ronald Reagan for any information he might have gleaned from his son. The investigation, after all, was a top priority. But Hoover blocked them from questioning Reagan, thus sparing him potentially unfavorable publicity. Declaring it 'unlikely that Ronald Reagan would have any information of significance,' Hoover instead ordered agents to warn him about his son’s worrisome friendship." - New York Times]

Later, there were legal problems:

In 1981 Reagan was accused, but later cleared of felony violations of California securities laws in court documents. The Los Angeles County District Attorney alleged that Reagan had baited investors into unlawful stock arrangements, and selling stocks despite the fact that he was not legally permitted to do so. The D.A.'s office investigated allegations that Reagan improperly spent money invested by others in a company, Agricultural Energy Resources, he operated out of his house in a venture to develop the potential of gasohol, a combination of alcohol and gasoline. Investigators said they were also checking whether he had spent up to $17,500 of investors' money for his living expenses. The district attorney's office cleared Reagan of both charges later that year. [“The investigators said they became interested in Michael Reagan after being informed that he had steered customers to Mr. Carey {Richard Francis Carey, who "was selling worthless stock,"} had accepted a $4,000 check from one investor, and that, in at least one meeting of potential investors, his relationship to Ronald Reagan had apparently been exploited as a promotional tool for the stock.” - New York Times]
On September 20, 2012, Reagan and two associates were sued by Elias Chavando, a fellow partner, for allegedly withholding Chavando's interest in an e-mail business built around the Reagan.com domain name. In 2015, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Reagan liable for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. Reagan and his business partners were ordered to pay $662,500 in damages.
(From Wikipedia's Michael Reagan.)

Michael tended to smash things (cars, etc.) in his youth. Well into his 40s, he tells us, he was full of "rage" (owing, he explains, to having been molested) and he treated his family badly.


Then, natch, he found the Lord.


Plus, owing to his relationship to his pop, President Ronald Reagan, Michael grabbed the brass ring and became a talk-show host on one or two right-wing radio networks. Blah, blah, blah, he said.


In his latter-day career as mediocre right-wing bloviater and Pious Christian, Michael Reagan has said some unfortunate things:

In April 2013, in a syndicated column, Reagan accused American churches of not fighting hard enough to block same-sex marriage. He wrote that, in regards to arguments supporting gay marriage, similar arguments could be used to support polygamy, bestiality, and murder.

. . . In June 2008, conspiracy theorist Mark Dice launched a campaign urging people to send letters and DVDs to troops stationed in Iraq which support the theory that the September 11 attacks were an "inside job". "Operation Inform the Soldiers", as Dice has called it, prompted Reagan to comment that Dice should be executed for treason. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a liberal/progressive media criticism organization, asked Radio America at the time to explain whether it permits "its hosts to call for murder on the air".

. . . He spoke out in support of profiling in October 2014. In a piece called Profile or Die, he wrote that it would be left to citizens to defend themselves if there were an attack against them by terrorists such as the Islamic State. (Wikipedia)

Golly. It's pretty clear that Michael Reagan is just another "former total fuck-up, now reborn and pious."


Intellectually, he's a low-rent Limbaugh, and that's pretty low.


I mean, when he gets here, just what is he gonna say? That liberals are evil? That his dad was a saint? That freedom and democracy are good? That you oughta put your life in the hands of the Lord? That you don't need to go to college? That homosexuality is a sin?


Only in Bizarro World would Michael Reagan be judged a good speaker to invite to a college.


* * *

Meanwhile, IVC's Guaranteed Accounting Program folks have only wonderful things to say about the fellow:


Michael Reagan

The eldest son of former President Ronald Reagan and one of the most dynamic and sought-after public speakers, Michael Reagan’s commitments to public service and the conservative vision his father championed are second to none, making him the natural heir to the Reagan conservative legacy. Michael serves as chairman and president of the Reagan Legacy Foundation, which seeks to advance the causes President Reagan held dear and to memorialize the accomplishments of his presidency. Michael’s career includes hosting a national conservative radio talk show syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, championing his father’s values and principles in the public policy forum, commentating and appearing on the Today Show, Good Morning America, Good Day LA, CNN, and Fox News, and contributing to Newsmax Television. Also an accomplished author, Michael has many successful books including On the Outside Looking In, Twice Adopted, and his latest book, Lessons My Father Taught Me.

Well, sure. But he's also the worst kind of insubstantial, opportunistic "celebrity." And he's not an intellectual; he's a propagandist. He's a minor player in our sad era of noisy and loutish conservative anti-intellectualism and demagoguery.


—And he's a homophobe, among other things. Or so he says.


WAY TO GO, GLENN


IVC Prez Roquemore shares Reagan's enthusiasm for the Pussy-grabber-in-chief.

Recent columns by Michael Reagan


ALL IS FAIR IN THE WAR ON TRUMP (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, December 13, 2018

…Hillary continues to skate free, unbothered by the FBI or any federal agency for the dirty things she and the Obama administration’s injustice department did during the 2016 election to try to defeat Donald Trump.

But not General Flynn.

His life was ruined by the FBI bosses who set out to nail him – and did….

TRUMP VS THE CRAZIES (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, January 11, 2019

…Some of the country’s most desperate liberals in the media actually argued that the president’s televised pitch to the country for congressional funding for a stronger border fence should not be carried live by the networks.

Why? Because they said the president lies too much and they wanted to be able to fact-check his speech beforehand….

TRUMP SAYS ‘ADIOS’ TO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, November 1, 2018

…Ending birthright citizenship, better known as dropping the anchor baby, is the most significant illegal immigration reform the President Trump has announced. With a single executive order, he unplugs a beacon that attracts scammers from the world over. He also attacks a visible manifestation of the “foreigners first” mindset that has infected the State Department, and the rest of the federal bureaucracy, since the 1960s….

THE PARTY OF EVIL (Cagle.com) - by Michael Reagan, October 11, 2018

…Now, thanks to the Democrats’ ugly smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh, Republican senators like Susan Collins and Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders need security guards 24/7.

It’s not the new Supreme Court Justice who’s evil.

It’s the Democrat Party and the nasty “progressives” who’ve taken it over and are willing to say or do anything or destroy anyone to bring down President Trump.

Maybe this is not something new. Maybe the Democrats have always been this evil….

About Michael Reagan:


A separate peace* (LA Times, August 31, 2004) – by Anne-Marie O'Connor

For years, Michael Reagan, the older son of Ronald Reagan, felt unloved and unwanted. His parents divorced when he was 3. Two years later he was packed off to a boarding school where, he says, he was so lonely he cried himself to sleep. Sexually abused at age 7, he felt shame and self-loathing, compounded by Bible passages that convinced him he would never go to heaven.

He grew up so angry he smashed a childhood bicycle and later took a sledgehammer to his new car. Well into his 40s, his "rage came to a full boil," and he often yelled at his wife and young son.

Then, he says, he found salvation through the love of his family and his "adoption" by God. He embraced conservative values and became a syndicated talk-radio host who today tells listeners: "I am homophobic."….

Roquemore and U of Phoenix

From Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy DtB, 8-26-14

Vice President, Western Region, Workforce Solutions/University of Phoenix, Chuck Parker, President, Irvine Valley College, Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore

Members of the Irvine Valley College community just received this gushing email from the President:

Irvine Valley College Signs Memorandum of Understanding with University of Phoenix

Irvine – Irvine Valley College (IVC) administration, faculty and staff held a formal signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Phoenix, Inc. (University) on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.

Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore said, “This partnership will expand the many transfer opportunities available to the IVC students and staff. One of the major benefits of the MOU is the tuition discount."

Irvine Valley College students transferring to University of Phoenix into an undergraduate baccalaureate degree program … will be considered as having satisfied the general education requirements for the breadth of the liberal arts degree program….

IVC students get 10% off Phoenix tuition, which is way pricey.

Evidently, President Roquemore is not aware that entities such as the U of Phoenix exist to make huge profits by taking advantage of students who typically receive federally insured loans, putting them in serious debt. Those students, upon graduating, typically fail to find the work they were expecting and often default on their loans, forcing the taxpayer to pay. (It's a massive bubble that, one day, will pop.)

You’re fine with all that, are you Glenn? You're a Republican, aren't you? Yeah. I see you smiling with those vets you claim to love!

Alas, the "predatory for-profits" problem is especially egregious in the case of Vets, who pay their way via the new GI Bill:


GI Bill funds failing for-profit California colleges

(Desert Sun)

The ever-clueless Glenn R

Over the last five years, more than $600 million in college assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has been spent on California schools so substandard that they have failed to qualify for state financial aid.

As a result, the GI Bill — designed to help veterans live the American dream — is supporting for-profit companies that spend lavishly on marketing but can leave veterans with worthless degrees and few job prospects, The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

. . .

Financial records analyzed by CIR show that California is the national epicenter of this problem, with nearly 2 out of every 3 GI Bill dollars going to for-profit colleges.

The University of Phoenix in San Diego outdistances its peers. Since 2009, the campus has received $95 million in GI Bill funds. That's more than any brick-and-mortar campus in America, more than the entire 10-campus University of California system and all UC extension programs combined.

. . .

The school's large share of GI Bill funding reflects more than just the number of veterans enrolling. The programs are expensive. An associate degree costs $395 a credit, for instance — nearly 10 times the cost at a public community college.

The University of Phoenix won't say how many of its veterans graduate or find jobs, but the overall graduation rate at its San Diego campus is less than 15 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and more than a quarter of students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.

Those figures fall short of the minimum standards set by the California Student Aid Commission, which dispenses state financial aid. The commission considers either a graduation rate lower than 30 percent or a loan default rate of more than 15.5 percent clear indicators of a substandard education.

No such restrictions govern GI Bill funds. And nearly 300 California schools that received GI Bill money either were barred from receiving state financial aid at least once in the past four years or operated without accreditation, CIR has found.

. . .

Of the $1.5 billion in GI Bill funds spent on tuition and fees in California since 2009, CIR found that more than 40 percent — $638 million —went to schools that have failed the state financial aid standard at least once in the past four years.

Four of those schools were University of Phoenix campuses, which together took in $225 million….

An Enemy In Common? The Case Against For-Profit Colleges

(Cognoscenti [NPR Boston])

… As Americans, we should all be concerned that veterans are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous profiteers. As taxpayers, we should be aware that we are paying for this disservice. Approximately 85-95 percent of the for-profits’ revenue comes from taxpayer-supported benefits….

For-Profit College Investigation--Is the New GI Bill Working?: Questionable For-Profit Colleges Increasingly Dominate the Program

([Senator] Harkin newsletter)


…Senator Harkin's HELP Committee investigation found:

. . .

  • Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable.
  • Because 96 percent of students starting a for-profit college take federal student loans to attend a for-profit college (compared to 13 percent at community colleges), nearly all students who leave have student loan debt, even when they don't have a degree or diploma or increased earning power.
  • Students who attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults in 2008 and 2009. More than 1 in 5 students enrolling in a for-profit college-22 percent-default within 3 years of entering repayment on their student loans....

Hey-Diddly-Ho, Neighbor!

Oldie but Goodie [2012]: See Senator Harkin’s For-Profit College Investigation: U of Phoenix

Glenn Roquemore, the Pacifica Institute & women's "primordial nature"

Glenn Roquemore, the Pacifica Institute & women's "primordial nature" May 21, 2013

Delivering factoids for

Turkish anti-feminists

Here’s a curious factoid. I came across the following press release, evidently dating back to April of 2008. It was posted by the “Pacifica Institute,” which has a dozen or so offices, including one in Orange County (Irvine):


Glenn R. Roquemore-Irvine Valley College President Speaks at PI - Orange County

Today Pacifica Institute hosted Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore. Before this luncheon forum in Irvine , New Zealand Consul General Rob Taylor and Irvine Mayor Beth Krom were the keynote speakers. Consul General Rob Taylor spoke about Welcoming Diversity as a Path to Peace and Mayor Beth Krom’s topic was How to Create a Balanced Community. Dr Glenn Roquemore’s topic is the Role of Community Colleges in Higher Education.

Dr. Glenn Roquemore is President of Irvine Valley College….

Dr Roquemore gave very important statistics of the Community Colleges in California….

You’ll recall that, in the past, we’ve kidded Roquemore over his tendency to approach speaking always as an occasion to dispense the merest of statistics as though they were astonishing jewels. "Two percent of our students," he'll say, "sport a vestigial tail." Huh?

What’s the matter with ‘im? Dunno.

But just who are these “Pacifica Institute” people?

According to PI’s website,

Pacifica Institute was established in 2003 as a non-profit organization by a group of Turkish-Americans. Pacifica Institute designs and executes projects covering social welfare, education, poverty, and conflict resolution issues in collaboration with scholars, activists, artists, politicians, and religious leaders-communities….

. . .

The Institute seeks to …[engage] in a variety of civic activities and [seeks to invite] others to generate and share insights, thereby removing barriers to confidence-building and trust….

Gosh, it sounds as though that illiterate pseudo-educator, Raghu Mathur, may have had a hand in writing this stuff.

Elsewhere, PI presents “Frequently Asked Questions about Pacifica Institute and Fethullah Gülen.”

One naturally assumes, then, that Mr. Fethullah Gülen and his ideas are important to PI. Sure enough, in the Q&A, Gülen and his movement are central:

Fethullah Gülen

Q: How is the Pacifica Institute involved with the Gülen movement?

A: Some of the founders and donors of Pacifica Institute are participants of the so-called Gülen, or Hizmet movement. Pacifica Institute was inspired by the movement’s philosophy and goals….

. . .

The Gülen/Hizmet movement is a values-driven social movement and following a philosophy that advances interfaith dialog, education and community service as tools to build a better and more harmonious society. The movement was inspired by the philosophy and teachings of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish scholar, author and advocate….

. . .

Q: Who is Fethullah Gülen?

A: Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish scholar, preacher, thinker, author, opinion leader, education activist, and peace advocate who is considered by many to be one of the world’s most influential religious thinkers. He is regarded as the initiator and inspirer of the worldwide civil society movement, the Gülen Movement, which is committed to education, dialogue, peace, social justice, and social harmony….

Well, I’ve done a little looking, and this Gülen fella is mighty controversial, in some circles at least.

I skimmed a couple of sites, which suggested that Gulen is, among other things, a conservative and a vocal opponent of feminism (although I ask that readers judge for themselves based on his writings--and the writings of his mouthpieces).

So I went to the Fethullah Gülen website. There, I searched the term “feminism” and that brought me to a page with links to various relevant essays, evidently by Mr. Gülen, including The Gülen Movement: Gender and Practice.

I clicked on that. That essay includes this passage:

Although he promotes equality between the sexes, Fethullah Gülen's views on gender can indeed be described as complementary. He sees women and men as having equal value but inheriting different roles and characteristics due to physical and psychological differences. He classifies men as "physically stronger and apt to bear hardship" and women as "more compassionate, more delicate, more self sacrificing" (Gülen 2006: 1). Although he does state that women can be involved in any field of work he idealizes the mother as the pure educator (Gülen 2006: 2) implicitly implying that the man should be the family provider. This may open up for critique on behalf of Western feminists or scholars of religion and gender. According to this relatively new academic discipline[,] gender is a social construction. Human beings are born with different sexes, but social roles and expectations of fulfillment of these are constructed and emphasized by the norms that prevail in society.

Another link takes one to an essay entitled Women Confined and Mistreated. Here are some excerpts:

As a reaction to all the injustice done to women … a movement to claim women's rights emerged, particularly in the West. Even though this movement is considered an awakening of women, it occurred as a reaction and was doomed to imbalance like all other reactionary movements and ended up in extremism. Although the starting point was to defend women, in time it deviated from the original aim to the degree of being full of hatred towards men and to feeling a grudge against them. The movement named feminism, which was born from the idea of protecting women and providing them with rights equal to those of men, has only left behind longing, sorrow, and wreckage as a movement of discontentment….

. . .

According to Islam, women's role in this world is not only restricted to doing the housework and raising children. In fact, as long as it does not conflict with her primordial nature or with observing religious requirements, she is responsible for carrying out the duties that befall her in every area of society and making up for shortcomings where men fall short in social life. However, this reality was ignored in time, even among Muslims; rough understandings and crude thinking upset this system based on women and men's mutual assistance. After this upset, both family life and the social order were also upset. Different peoples' perception of their own historical heritage as a part of Islam, their seeing and reflecting their folklore and traditions as essentials of religion, and making judgments pertaining to this issue at certain periods all resulted in the usurpation of women's rights; they were pushed into a more restricted area day by day, and in some places they were totally isolated from life without consideration of where this issue leads. However, the source of mistaken thoughts and deviations in this matter is not Islam whatsoever. The mistakes belong to those who misinterpret and misapply the religion. Such mistakes in practice must definitely be corrected.

On the other hand, while correcting these mistakes, approaching the issue from a feminist standpoint will upset the balance again and an opposite extremism will replace the former. For instance, just as it is very ugly to see women as merely child-bearing objects and is insolence towards them, it is equally unbecoming and unnatural to build a society where women are unable to bear and bring up the children they wish for, or for a woman to feel a need to rebel against marrying and to avoid bearing children in order to show that she is not a machine. As a woman is not a dirty dish, her place at home is not confined to the kitchen with the dirty dishes. However, a woman who claims to have no household responsibilities and thereby turns her home to a quarters for eating and sleeping is far from being a good mother, a good teacher, and a good spiritual guide to her children.

Besides all this, it is another form of oppression to make women work under difficult conditions, such as mining and road-building. It contradicts human nature to push women into heavy tasks like agricultural manual labor, or military field operations, and other harsh pursuits, just for the sake of proving their equality with men; it is nothing but cruel torture. It shows ignorance of women's qualities and conflicts with their primordial nature. Therefore, just as an understanding which imprisons women at home and takes them completely away from social life is absolutely incorrect according to Islam, likewise, depriving women of financial support, preventing them from bearing and raising children in security, and forcing women into the labor force to do uncongenial work is also oppressive. A woman, like a man, can have a certain job as far as her (and his) physiology and psychology are taken into consideration; but both women and men should know that a good life consists of sharing and division of labor. Each should assist the other by doing tasks in compliance with their nature.

Yikes.

I’m in no position to judge this “take” on feminism relative to the various Muslim communities (e.g., in Turkey) and the possibility of discourse within them. But it’s pretty plain that Gülen’s philosophy, as expressed here, is antithetical to some of the core tenets of Western feminism, broadly understood. It seems clear that Gülen is not likely to gain many adherents or followers among contemporary Westerners, with their commitment to the ideal of equality, as they understand it at least, between the sexes.

The Wikipedia article on Gülen is alarming—if, that is, it can be trusted. It asserts that

...Gülen's views are vulnerable to the charge of misogyny. As noted by Berna Turam, Gülen has argued:

"the man is used to more demanding jobs . . . but a woman must be excluded during certain days during the month. After giving birth, she sometimes cannot be active for two months. She cannot take part in different segments of the society all the time. She cannot travel without her husband, father, or brother . . . the superiority of men compared to women cannot be denied." [35]

Berna Turam, Northeastern

Wikipedia is quoting Berna Turam, a serious academic at Northeastern U. She herself seems to cite a work from 1996 entitled Fethullah Gulen Hocaefendi ile ufuk turu (Aktuel kitaplar dizisi). It is written in Turkish.

One should be careful to note that the superiority that Gülen is discussing is physical, not moral, or at least that's how I read it. Even so, his remarks are mighty offensive, at least to these Western ears.


Gosh Glenn, you really oughta be more careful who you hang out with. Philosophically, these Gülenites are a problem, at least relative to most of our community on these shores.

I'll see if I can shed more light on the Pacifica Institute and what it means for the likes of Glenn Roquemore and Beth Krom (a Democrat) to be hanging out with 'em.

Votes of "no confidence" - 1999

from the Dissenter's Dictionary, Dec. 3, 1999


MATHUR, RAGHU P.



In April of 1997, in an action later judged a violation of the Open Meetings law, the Board Majority appointed chemistry teacher and campus joke Raghu P. Mathur as Interim President of Irvine Valley College. At the time, Mathur had no experience as a full-time administrator. Five months later, through a process that violated board policy, and amid strong faculty opposition, the BM appointed Mathur permanent president. That action, too, was later voided owing to violations of the Brown Act. Two years later, despite his miserable record, which included a vote of no confidence and the palpable contempt of nearly all IVC faculty and staff, the board majority renewed Mathur's contract, giving him a raise and a $200 a month "security stipend."

Mathur was hired as an instructor in 1979, and he quickly established a reputation as a schemer and liar who would stoop to anything in order to secure an administrative position. Owing to his manifest unsavoriness, however, that ambition was consistently thwarted both inside and outside the district.

His intrigues soon gained him the hatred of Ed Hart, IVC's first president. In 1986, Hart retired, and the college adopted a "faculty chair" model, partly for fiscal reasons. Soon, Mathur "ruled" the tiny school of Physical Sciences as its chair. During the "chair" era, he was, without doubt, the chief abuser of that office, engaging in endless machinations while arranging a lucrative schedule that netted him a salary far in excess of the college president's ($124,000 in 1996-7).

During this period, Mathur continued to seek administrative positions. When he was passed over, he played the race card, charging everyone in sight with "discrimination," apparently on the sole grounds that he had not been selected.

Mathur's habit, as chair, of circumventing the governance process eventually yielded an official censure of him by IVC's "Instructional Council' in April of 1994. Earlier, the IC membership had all agreed not to go outside the process--particularly with regard to the selection of the IVC presidential search committee chair. During an IC meeting in March (of 94), Mathur was asked whether, despite the agreement, he had presented a petition, urging the selection of a particular faculty member, to the chancellor. He answered that he had "not forwarded" a petition to the chancellor or anyone. In fact, he had and, apparently on that basis, the chancellor did appoint the faculty member as (co)chair.

When this came to light in April, Mathur was censured. According to the minutes of the April 5 meeting, "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...[One member] made a motion to censur 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...Raghu Mathur 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...Raghu felt that the members of Instructional Council were making too big of a deal out of the situation...The question was called and the motion passed with 8 ayes, 3 noes, and 4 abstentions."

Classified employees, too, have at times found it necessary to complain about of Mathur's conduct. For instance, in August of 1995, IVC administration received a letter from Leann Cribb, Executive Secretary (and formerly secretary for the School of Physical Sciences), in which she wrote: "Mr. Mathur routinely revises facts and manufactures innuendo to suit his objectives." During the January '98 Board meeting, classified employee Julie Ben-Yeoshua explained that Mathur was the reason she was seeking employment elsewhere: "Since you first appointed Raghu Mathur as the interim president, the atmosphere at IVC has changed drastically; morale is in the gutter...[Mathur's] inability to tell the truth is so natural that I have come to gauge everything he says and writes by believing the complete opposite...."

By the mid-90s, Mathur had come to regard Terry Burgess, then-VP of Instruction, as his nemesis, and, in 1996, he tried to discredit Burgess with the board. In the spring of '96, a student sought to enroll in a chemistry course without enrolling in the concurrent lab, and the matter came before the chair--Mathur. Though the student provided documentation proving that she had done the equivalent work at UCI, Mathur denied the request, whereupon the student asked for a review of the decision by the Office of Instruction. Mathur agreed to go along with the Office's decision.

Later, however, he accused Burgess of signing the student's admittance card despite non-approval by the instructor. Mathur convinced his school to send a resolution of complaint to the board (and also to the senate and the union), appending the student's transcripts, without her permission, an action that violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and district policies. When then-IVC president Dan Larios learned of this, he requested an opinion from the district's attorneys regarding the legality of Mathur's action. The opinion, dated March 18, 1996, indicates that Mathur acted improperly, violating FERPA and board policy 5619. Larios was fed up.

Realizing that Larios now planned to deny approval of him as chair of his school, Mathur, as per usual, scrambled to lobby board members for support. On March 29, Larios met with Mathur; he explained that he had lost confidence in Mathur and that Mathur had better "change." In the end, Larios wrote a memo (May 14) expressing his serious reservations about Mathur's leadership, owing to his repeated circumventing of established processes and his violations of board policy, and placed him on probation. If there were any further violations of process, wrote Larios, Mathur would be removed as chair.

In the meantime, Mathur asked the senate to censure Burgess. It declined to do so, citing Mathur's misdescription of crucial facts. Larios, troubled by Mathur's misrepresentations, sent out a memo explaining that Burgess had in no sense acted improperly.

In December of '96, the Board Majority era began, and Larios sensed that it was time to move on. Normally, the VP of Instruction—Terry Burgess--would serve as interim president, but the BM blocked his selection, and, in March, Lombardi was chosen as a sort of compromise. But in April, Frogue presented another one of Mathur's petitions--this time, an “anonymous” petition urging Mathur's selection as president. On that basis, Mathur became IVC president.

Mathur's outrages while president are too numerous to recount here. Suffice it to say that in the early months of 1998, the IVC academic senate instituted a Special Inquiry into “abuses of power.” By April, it became necessary to abandon the investigation, owing to the number and the complexity of the charges against Mathur. Said the committee’s chair: “It’s like bailing water out of the Titanic with a tea cup…Every time we put an allegation to bed, another one jumps up” (Voice, 5/7/98). Soon thereafter, Mathur received a 74% vote of no confidence by his faculty.

Mathur has sought to rule through intimidation, punishing his critics in every way available to him. In early November of 1999, the IVC academic senate released the results of a survey of full-time faculty (78% participated). 90% disagreed with the statement, "I can express my opinion about issues at the college without fear of retribution or retaliation." The 90% figure will likely go up soon, for Mathur intends to fire an untenured instructor--a critic--for his involvement in the act of naming the plot of dirt next to the Life Sciences greenhouse. It was named the "Terry Burgess garden."


Huge Vote Against College Chief (LA Times, May 18, 2004 | Jeff Gottlieb)

Faculty in the South Orange County Community College District overwhelmingly voted no confidence Monday in Chancellor Raghu Mathur.
Of the full-time professors at Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges who cast ballots, 93.5% voted in favor of no confidence, and 6% were against the union-sponsored measure. One person abstained.
Out of 318 faculty eligible, 246 -- 77% -- voted, according to the district faculty association….

Clueless IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore smiles as he makes nice with the enemy - August 26, 2014

Vice President, Western Region, Workforce Solutions/University of Phoenix, Chuck Parker, President, Irvine Valley College, Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore

○ Members of the Irvine Valley College community just received this gushing email from the President:

Irvine Valley College Signs Memorandum of Understanding with University of Phoenix

Irvine – Irvine Valley College (IVC) administration, faculty and staff held a formal signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Phoenix, Inc. (University) on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.
Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore said, “This partnership will expand the many transfer opportunities available to the IVC students and staff. One of the major benefits of the MOU is the tuition discount."
Irvine Valley College students transferring to University of Phoenix into an undergraduate baccalaureate degree program … will be considered as having satisfied the general education requirements for the breadth of the liberal arts degree program….

○ IVC students get 10% off Phoenix tuition, which is way pricey.

○ Evidently, President Roquemore is not aware that entities such as the U of Phoenix exist to make huge profits by taking advantage of students who typically receive federally insured loans, putting them in serious debt. Those students, upon graduating, typically fail to find the work they were expecting and often default on their loans, forcing the taxpayer to pay. (It's a massive bubble that, one day, will pop.)

○ You’re fine with all that, are you Glenn? You're a Republican, aren't you? Yeah. I see you smiling with those vets you claim to love!

○ Alas, the "predatory for-profits" problem is especially egregious in the case of Vets, who pay their way via the new GI Bill:


GI Bill funds failing for-profit California colleges

(Desert Sun)

The ever-clueless Glenn R

Over the last five years, more than $600 million in college assistance for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has been spent on California schools so substandard that they have failed to qualify for state financial aid.
As a result, the GI Bill — designed to help veterans live the American dream — is supporting for-profit companies that spend lavishly on marketing but can leave veterans with worthless degrees and few job prospects, The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

. . .

Financial records analyzed by CIR show that California is the national epicenter of this problem, with nearly 2 out of every 3 GI Bill dollars going to for-profit colleges.
The University of Phoenix in San Diego outdistances its peers. Since 2009, the campus has received $95 million in GI Bill funds. That's more than any brick-and-mortar campus in America, more than the entire 10-campus University of California system and all UC extension programs combined.

. . .

The school's large share of GI Bill funding reflects more than just the number of veterans enrolling. The programs are expensive. An associate degree costs $395 a credit, for instance — nearly 10 times the cost at a public community college.
The University of Phoenix won't say how many of its veterans graduate or find jobs, but the overall graduation rate at its San Diego campus is less than 15 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education, and more than a quarter of students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.
Those figures fall short of the minimum standards set by the California Student Aid Commission, which dispenses state financial aid. The commission considers either a graduation rate lower than 30 percent or a loan default rate of more than 15.5 percent clear indicators of a substandard education.
No such restrictions govern GI Bill funds. And nearly 300 California schools that received GI Bill money either were barred from receiving state financial aid at least once in the past four years or operated without accreditation, CIR has found.

. . .

Of the $1.5 billion in GI Bill funds spent on tuition and fees in California since 2009, CIR found that more than 40 percent — $638 million —went to schools that have failed the state financial aid standard at least once in the past four years.
Four of those schools were University of Phoenix campuses, which together took in $225 million….

An Enemy In Common? The Case Against For-Profit Colleges

(Cognoscenti [NPR Boston])

… As Americans, we should all be concerned that veterans are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous profiteers. As taxpayers, we should be aware that we are paying for this disservice. Approximately 85-95 percent of the for-profits’ revenue comes from taxpayer-supported benefits….

For-Profit College Investigation--Is the New GI Bill Working?: Questionable For-Profit Colleges Increasingly Dominate the Program

([Senator] Harkin newsletter)


…Senator Harkin's HELP Committee investigation found:

. . .

  • Most for-profit colleges charge much higher tuition than comparable programs at community colleges and flagship State public universities. The investigation found Associate degree and certificate programs averaged four times the cost of degree programs at comparable community colleges. Bachelor's degree programs averaged 20 percent more than the cost of analogous programs at flagship public universities despite the credits being largely non-transferrable.
  • Because 96 percent of students starting a for-profit college take federal student loans to attend a for-profit college (compared to 13 percent at community colleges), nearly all students who leave have student loan debt, even when they don't have a degree or diploma or increased earning power.
  • Students who attended a for-profit college accounted for 47 percent of all Federal student loan defaults in 2008 and 2009. More than 1 in 5 students enrolling in a for-profit college-22 percent-default within 3 years of entering repayment on their student loans....

Hey-Diddly-Ho, Neighbor!

Oldie but Goodie [2012]: See Senator Harkin’s For-Profit College Investigation: U of Phoenix