As we waited for 105’s door to open, more of the usual suspects gathered, and buzzage commenced about that day’s federal court hearing on the “students’ lawsuit”—the one that challenges the Constitutionality of the district’s speech and advocacy policy, a policy intended for students but extended to faculty during the summer months by a ruthless Raghu P. Mathur, prevaricator extraordinaire. Earlier, I had been told that Raghu and his booted boot-licker, Armando, had left for court in the morning and had returned in the afternoon with poker faces and sweaty suits. Now, the word was out that the students had essentially won. To everyone’s delight, a story about the lawsuit was running on OCN, which, as usual, made district officials look like real assholes.
The door finally swung open at about 6:40, and, after a few minutes, the board meeting “reconvened” to open session. Marcia M led us in a pledge “to our great country.” Meanwhile, I espied Pam Zanelli standing around in the back room; she was wearing a pink outfit and big hair and chewed gum like a $5 flack. No pledge for her.
The Froguester’s prayer included the usual snide remarks and unpleasant allusions. (He evidently thinks the Lord is a Republican.) Everyone was aghast, regarding Frogue as they might regard a turd in a glass of milk.
Next, Board President “Dot” Fortune begrudgingly invited speakers to come up to the podium to make public remarks, if they must. Bob C went first. He complained of the Board’s failure to honor “process” in its pursuit of its new dream of soccer at Saddleback, a dream for which no shared governance groups at the college had even the slightest enthusiasm. (Bob reminded the board of its earlier dream of a minor-league baseball team, which proved to be a costly fiasco.)
Then someone named Kent spoke on behalf of the Costa Rica summer program at IVC. Remember Dot’s first time out as trustee in December of ’96? That night, she gave early indication of her loutishness, implying, groundlessly, that, in actuality, the Costa Rica program is just a “surf party.”
Trustees’ reports:
Jeepers!
Johnny Boy [Williams] mentioned his having attended something called “Constitution Day” at the Claremont Institute, which, I’m told, is a right wing think tank. During his report, Frogue said he showed up for that one, too, and he even asked questions. I bet the people at the Institute were impressed by these two dolts from south OC, one bouncing a soccer ball on his head, the other quoting Spotlight.
Frogue also reported that he had attended “Club Day” at IVC, where he brought flowers to the MECHA table. (He said they were intended for Professor Alvarez.) He had also visited the tables of the Christian Club, the Chinese Club, the Student Liberties Club, and the Hair Club for Men. He signed rosters. A couple of days later, he said, he actually showed up for the Student Liberties Club meeting. The club, he noted, flirting with incoherence, is affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union, though its name didn’t have the word “civil” in it. No one had a clue what he was talking about.
Marcia M talked about her visit with the generous American Association of University Women, an organization that, despite having given many thousands of dollars in scholarships to our students, was recently attacked by Trustee Wagner, owing to its association with that Commie Rat Bastard, Jane Fonda.
Wagner, who, despite his right-wingedness, has been pretty darned good at meetings in recent months, reported that he had met with various governance groups, especially at IVC. He noted that enrollments are up, which is good, but that the colleges had budgeted for a far greater increase, which is bad. He noted that other colleges experienced much higher growth rates, so what are we doing wrong? Everybody stared at Raghu, whose jowls twitched involuntarily.
Lang spoke of the need for the district to institute various financial reforms, including an outside legal review of contracts and the like.
Padberg spoke of beautification.
The Chancellor had nothing to say. Ditto for President Bullock. Mathur furiously patted himself on the back about something that someone else had done. For some reason, he insisted on pronouncing “Irvine” as though it were spelled “Irwine.” Nobody cared. He noted that Ray “Whitewash Willy” Chandos is once again in charge of writing the report for the Accweditation Commission.
Soon, Marcia objected to the minutes of a previous meeting. The minutes said that she had voted for some measure; in fact, said Marcia, she had abstained. Dot, exhibiting her usual graciousness, then suggested that, during the meeting in question, Marcia had blundered by failing to speak up. Nope, it’s not that she had failed to speak up, said Marcia. Rather, it’s that Dot had failed to ask if there were any abstentions. Dot hissed unpleasantly. Just then, a rat ran across the lens of a light fixture immediately above her head.
Fee hike:
After a while, the trustees discussed the proposed 3% fee schedule hike at IVC’s Child Development Center. As Raghu’s jowls drooped, Wagner explained that this is the second 3% hike in two years. He complained that no “background information” to justify the hike had been provided. (Background information? You’ll recall that, back in June, Mathur had submitted a tentative budget for his college without mentioning its failure to include a $4,000,000 expenditure! Thanks to IVC’s senate, this “background information” came to light in August, whereupon Wagner expressed consternation at Mathur’s failure to inform the board.) Wagner noted that, during the ’98 campaign, voters had often expressed concern about the cost of child care.
Fortune responded by saying that the Child Development Centers of both campuses lose money, and so the hike is justified. Lang expressed concerns about access to the services of the centers. Is preference given to some parents? (Yup.)
Wagner suggested that perhaps now is the time for the district to step back to ask some basic questions about our purpose or purposes with these centers, which are expensive. The Chancellor, fresh from sticking a wet finger in the air, acknowledged that the centers are “historical legacies,” and that it is perhaps time to raise these fundamental questions. He simpered.
Williams then began to speechify idiotically. “We’re here to serve our students,” he intoned. He endorsed child care centers. He declared that the district’s centers provide plenty of “bang for the buck.” (Later, it was revealed that only about 100 children per year are “served” by IVC’s center. So much for buck bangage.)
Wagner, looking desperate, made a point of logic: the wonderfulness of IVC’s Child Development Center doesn’t imply that the board has been given enough information to make the decision at hand, namely, whether to approve this goddam 3% fee hike. (Wagner may be a right-wing lunatic, but he’s smart.) It was hopeless. An oblivious Padberg joined Williams in singing the praises of child care centers. Frogue joined in, warbling, irrelevantly, that he’s heard only good things about the Center. The motion passed 5-2, with Wagner muttering “morons” in his head.
Soon, Alan M spoke about the district’s Y2K readiness plus a minor snafu in that department. Marcia said that the head of the FAA will be in the air to usher in the new millennium—apparently a ploy to reassure the public; would Alan be on campus manning the district’s computers when the clock strikes twelve? Yuk Yuk Yuk. Yuk Yuk Yuk.
Soccer moms:
Everyone expected the discussion of item 31—“Declaration of intent to develop women’s and men’s intercollegiate soccer teams at Saddleback College”—to be contentious, and so Dot declared a ten-minute break.
After the break, Sampson, as usual, tried to bland everyone into a stupor, for he dislikes controversy . With utter indifference to the truth, he declared that, in his opinion, there’s widespread support for soccer at Saddleback College. He denied that there has been a failure to consult with governance groups. Contrary to the language appearing before us on the agenda, he now implied that the resolution entails no decision to introduce soccer at Saddleback College. So what’s the big deal?
Taking no notice, the monomaniacal Williams spoke passionately in favor of soccer at Saddleback. Presenting his entry in the evening’s “blatant obfuscation” derby, he said that a vote for soccer is a vote for gender equity. Huh?
Frogue referred, as always, to his 33 years as an instructor. “I remember soccer when it was still a little ball,” he seemed to say. He couldn’t imagine our not supporting soccer for Saddleback. You can’t argue with logic like that, no-sir-ree. I sat in a state of stupefaction. So did Armando Ruiz, who, sporting pointy gray boots, sat next to me, but he’s always that way.
Marcia Milchiker said that she would not be supporting the resolution. She had heard no requests for soccer from her constituents. Besides, the district already has soccer at IVC, and, even there, there isn’t enough interest to sustain a full team, she said. She worried that, by chasing after soccer balls, the district might be spreading its dollars too thin.
Next, the redoubtable Anne Cox, president of Saddleback’s Academic Senate, stepped up to the podium, an outrage that inspired an outpouring of Dottular peevitude. According to Dorothy, Cox should have made her intention to speak known at the start of the discussion. Anne had. (During the break, I believe.) But that didn’t matter to Dot, who grunts and thunders and pounds her fists just to keep in practice.
Anne noted that the soccer resolution had nothing to do with “gender equity.” The issue here, she said, is the curriculum process. Where there’s a new program, there’s need for curriculum, and in this district, there exists a long-established curriculum process, approved by the board, in which faculty take the lead. The board’s soccer initiative “stands the curriculum procedure on its head,” said Anne.
Trustee Padberg seemed to take these remarks—and Bob C’s earlier remarks—to heart. She suggested changing the language of the resolution to make clear that the board isn’t bypassing the shared governance process. El Ced then insisted, inexplicably, that passage of the resolution would not bypass that process.
Saddleback’s President Bullock noted that, in some areas of athletics, her college is underfunded. She asked: Shouldn’t we cover those holes before initiating a new program? She seemed to disagree with the Chancellor’s peculiar interpretation of the resolution, which she read as a plan to pursue soccer at Saddleback.
Padberg reiterated her “shared governance” worries, whereupon Fortune grunted a stupid remark. Then Williams again began to speechify. He said he had pledged to streamline bureaucracy. Besides, the senate represents a handful of faculty while he, an elected official, represents tens of thousands of goddam voters. So let’s “move this item along.”
At about that point, Anne Cox offered a remarkable display of gumption, a trait that is rare among south campus personnel. Without the blessing of the Dotted One, who runs meetings with an iron fist and an empty head, Anne now spoke, saying that the faculty were only asking that the board follow their own policy. Dot, who could not believe her eyes and ears, shouted into her mike, “You’re out of order! You’re out of order!” But Anne calmly continued, saying, “It’s your policy.”
The effrontery!
Soon, the Froguester, who had been daydreaming whilst twiddling his thumbs, harrumphed himself into consciousness and then expressed concern about the emphasis on the part of “certain groups” on “process over product.” Inexplicably, he cited the case of wait lists. “I have looked in vain,” he said, “for governance groups to say, ‘we’ve got to do something about these wait lists!’” Finally, he added, the board was forced to take the initiative on wait lists.
Wait lists! Wait lists! Wait lists!
Someone got the discussion back on track. In the end, Padberg’s amended resolution, which added the phrase “through appropriate processes,” was approved. Fortune declared that the discussion demonstrated the board’s magnanimity and openness. Sensing a need to undercut herself, she then bellowed that the board is “within its rights” in initiating and pressing this soccer business.
Trouble understanding “nepotism”:
Eventually, the board moved on to “Academic Personnel Actions.” Padberg noticed that, somewhere, a husband was about to be hired where his spouse was already working. Good Lord! Fortune suggested that, as things stand, all sorts of unseemly things occur when part-timers are hired. She implied, falsely, that cronyism and nepotism were the rule and that the hiring of adjunct faculty follows no process. She declared that open positions ought to be “properly advertised.” (They are.)
Williams opined that the hire of this person should not be held up just because the board hasn’t adopted an adequate nepotism policy. Fortune then painted a portrait of part-time hiring in the district according to which “only relatives” know that positions are open, and so they snap them up. Sampson noted that the two employees in questions are part-timers, and that nepotism, as he understands it, concerns abuses of power by one employee in favor of another. No such power relationship is involved here, he said. Fortune, ignoring such twaddle, again bellowed that current practice is “improper.” Wagner suggested that it is unfair to discuss these two people as though they’ve done something wrong. We have no reason at all to think that.
As this went on, new Director of HR, Sabrina R, had been standing at the podium to answer questions. She had had her hand raised for some time, hoping to shed light on this matter. Noticing this, El Ced alerted Dot to Sabrina’s raised hand, but Dot wasn’t interested in hearing from someone who might actually know what she’s talking about. El Ced then looked straight at Sabrina; he shrugged and then winked, as if to say, “What can I do? The woman’s an idiot.”
Failed witch-huntery:
Item 35 concerned reports that had been requested by board members back in July. Vice Chancellor Hodge presented them, one at a time. You’ll recall that Frogue had asked whether faculty are doing their committee work as their contract requires. Hodge now reported that every faculty member is assigned a committee. Indeed, she said, the data suggest that faculty are exceeding their committee obligations.
Frogue, who had hoped to uncover massive misconduct, was clearly disappointed. He asked: Are faculty actually showing up to these committee meetings? Is there access to chairships by faculty who are not part of the elite group? And what about these stipends for chairs! If faculty are required to serve on committees, then, in providing stipends, aren’t we “double tipping”? Frogue concluded these stupid and offensive remarks by saying that he needed “more information.”
Padberg, who seems to share Frogue’s weakness for conspiracy theories, concurred. At one point, Frogue’s purpose in asking for this kind of information was questioned. Someone said that some committees meet just once a semester—what about that? Fortune said she had heard “a lot of complaints” about the way in which committee assignments are made. There are certain people who always seem to be on interesting and powerful committees, she said. She implied that the senates should not have the only say in committee assignments. At that moment, she reached up through the lens of the light fixture above her head, pulled out a rat, and bit off its head. This seemed to calm her.
Sampson noted that faculty don’t “punch a clock.” Further, if you wish to track the activities of individual faculty, you need to leave that to deans.
Frogue said that in his seven years on the committee, no such request for information has ever been made, and so it isn’t asking too much to for staff to provide the information now. He said that the “same six people” are on every major committee and that they dominate everything. Everyone talks about shared governance, he said, but these people don’t want to share it at all.
Hodge repeated that the faculty in fact exceed the committee requirement. She noted that no effort by the district is made to “take roll” regarding committee meeting attendance. She acknowledged that the Academic Senates have a key role in determining committee assignments and the like, but, she added, recommendations can come, and often do come, from other sources.
The next report concerned “demand-driven class offerings.” The trustees seemed to like that one. Frogue said that he’s glad he finally got the report that the board had been asking for for years. He said he was “puzzled” that it had taken so long to get it. Mathur, with jowls aflappin’, chimed in to sing his own praises.
Dot Fortune asked about wait lists. Are there wait lists for all classes? Are these lists archived? Have we been using all this fancy new equipment we keep buying to keep track of this stuff?
Another report concerned “employment of relatives” and the district’s nepotism policy. That’s Padberg’s baby. She was disappointed to learn that the data in the report involved only full-time faculty. Sampson explained that the district might not be able to get the information that Padberg wanted concerning part-timers, since the forms filled out by prospective part-timers don’t ask about relatives and such. Until recently, even the forms filled out be full-timers haven’t asked about that. Padberg insisted that the requested information be provided.
Frogue made one of his “general comments.” Nepotism lowers morale, he said.
So do witch hunts, Steve.
Clown:
Eventually, the board turned to the customary “special reports.” Saddleback’s Christian Berrera spoke of recycling bins. Anne Cox gave a report on behalf of Saddleback’s Academic Senate. She objected to the way “Partnership For Excellence” funds are spent, for faculty have no say.
Sharon M, a candy-colored clown, got up to speak of recent favorable press for the district. (Huh?) Apparently on the verge of tears, she said that the majority of faculty are pleased to provide good instruction, or some such blather. She forgot to mention that she and her friends, including Frogue, Williams, Fortune, and Mathur, have nearly destroyed our once-great district.
Pleased with herself, Sharon sat down. And that was about it. —CW
No comments:
Post a Comment