Red Emma's infamous "open letter" to Raghu

NOT-SO-SECRET SERVICE (OC Weekly 12/30/99)


An open letter to Irvine Valley College president Raghu Mathur


ANDREW TONKOVICH [aka "Red Emma"]

December 30, 1999

Dear President Mathur: 

     I note that the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees recently awarded you a $200 monthly "security stipend." I am sure that, like me, all Irvine Valley College (IVC) faculty, students and staff will sleep better knowing efforts have been made to address the menace to your personal safety caused by threatening phone calls and e-mail (undocumented); political attacks on you in [the faculty-run] Dissent, the Los Angeles Times, The Orange County Register, OC Metro, OC Weekly, and [the student-run] Voice newspapers (constitutionally protected); and letters mailed to you via the U.S. Post Office (also, oddly, unavailable).
     I am writing to offer my services as a security consultant. As your security stipend is equivalent to a full two weeks' pay for my own work as a part-time instructor, you'll understand that I'm eager to start work immediately.
     As your presidential security consultant, I am prepared to: 

• Escort you to and from your car and the administration building every morning and evening. 

• Maintain secret files on high-profile personnel (we'll call it an Enemies List), including—but not limited to—academic-senate president Peter Morrison, philosophy instructor Roy Bauer and anthropology instructor Wendy Phillips. 

• Put English instructor Kate Clark under immediate 24-hour surveillance. 

• Taste your meals to check for poison. 

• Maintain a physical-security cordon in front of your office window. 

• Enforce the IVC clap. 

• Proofread your memos and letters for punctuation and spelling errors, clichés, factual errors, and ad hominem attacks.

I hope you'll contact me immediately for an interview, or at least file this letter.

January 7, 2000 OC WEEKLY

IN SECURITY

Thanks for printing my letter to Irvine Valley College president Raghu Mathur offering my services as Security Consultant (“Not-So-Secret Service,” Dec. 30). Mathur has yet to contact me regarding a job interview, presumably planning to spend his $2,400 annual stipend on a pit bull and a home alarm.

Please note that our illegally appointed community-college president not only manufactured unsubstantiated stories about “threats” to him (later contradicted in his free-speech-case deposition) but somehow also persuaded the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees to spend taxpayer dollars on this assertion. The board voted unanimously to write him a big check.

Readers may be further interested, or merely amused, to note that the same board recently elected as its president and vice president two candidates who in the most recent election received the endorsement of the Christian Coalition.

You can’t make this stuff up. Although, if you’re Mathur, you can make it up and get paid for it.

On a happier note, I’m proud to report that our union local—purged of the anti-democratic, pro-management types who helped get this wacky board elected—is reorganizing to defend our district from Mathur and his cadre of “fiscal conservatives” who’ve tried to run our little college into the ground.

Andrew Tonkovich

Instructor, Irvine Valley College

Not-so-secret-service: Tonkovich offers security services to Mathur

An open letter to Irvine Valley College president Raghu Mathur 

(Appearing in the OC WEEKLY) 

By Andrew Tonkovich 

(OC Weekly "open letter") 

Thursday, December 23, 1999

 - 12:00 am 

Dear President Mathur: 

I note that the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees recently awarded you a $200 monthly "security stipend." I am sure that, like me, all Irvine Valley College (IVC) faculty, students and staff will sleep better knowing efforts have been made to address the menace to your personal safety caused by threatening phone calls and e-mail (undocumented); political attacks on you in [the faculty-run] Dissent, the Los Angeles Times, The Orange County Register, OC Metro, OC Weekly, and [the student-run] Voice newspapers (constitutionally protected); and letters mailed to you via the U.S. Post Office (also, oddly, unavailable). I am writing to offer my services as a security consultant. As your security stipend is equivalent to a full two weeks’ pay for my own work as a part-time instructor, you’ll understand that I’m eager to start work immediately. As your presidential security consultant, I am prepared to:

• Escort you to and from your car and the administration building every morning and evening. 
• Maintain secret files on high-profile personnel (we’ll call it an Enemies List), including—but not limited to—academic-senate president Peter Morrison, philosophy instructor Roy Bauer and anthropology instructor Wendy Phillips. 
• 
  Put English instructor Kate Clark under immediate 24-hour surveillance. 
• Taste your meals to check for poison. 
• Maintain a physical-security cordon in front of your office window. 
• Enforce the IVC clap. 
• Proofread your memos and letters for punctuation and spelling errors, clichés, factual errors, and ad hominem attacks.

I hope you’ll contact me immediately for an interview, or at least file this letter. 

(See In security for an update on this offer.) 

(See also The OC Reg on Mathur's security request.)

Dot's anti-Dissent: “It’s insulting. It’s banal”

Purported author/editor
of anti-Dissent newsletters

12/16/1999 LA TIMES

Newsletters lampoon college faculty, officials

They satirize relations between professors and community college district.

By RENEE MOILANEN

   MISSION VIEJO—Two mysterious newsletters with “insulting” references to certain faculty leaders appeared in Saddleback College staff mailboxes in the last few weeks, an apparent response to satirical newsletters [Dissent and 'Vine] published by an Irvine Valley College professor…Both newsletters were anonymous…[Saddleback Academic Senate President Anne] Cox said she received the first newsletter a few weeks ago. s she said, adding that it characterizes exactly the problems between the district and college faculties.

   “Ugly, vicious personal attacks flourish and are encouraged by the leadership in the district,” she said….

   [Bob] Cosgrove, a self-described “outspoken critic” of the board, called the newsletters “juvenile.”

   “They’re unsigned, which tells the people are gutless,” he said.

   Chancellor Cedric Sampson said he’d seen only one of the newsletters.

   “There are points and counterpoints to faculty opinion. I don’t think that’s unusual,” he said.

Dissent 39
December 13, 1999

Saddleback’s Nameless Newsletter

by Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer]

     The Dissent/’Vine has evidently inspired one or two anonymous “response” publications, which have appeared of late in some faculty mailboxes. The first of these nameless documents surfaced, mostly at Saddleback College, around the time of the last Accrediting team visit. Here are some “highlights” from that initial publication:

•    Saddleback College Academic senate president Anne Cox is described as “the queen of 80’s hair.” Evidently referring to physical attractiveness, the Nameless Newsletter (NN) opines, apparently without irony, that Cox is “no competition for the President of the Board.” The latter —viz., Dorothy Fortune—is described as “a snappy dresser [who] looks great on TV.”
•    Inexplicably, IVC Anthropology instructor Wendy Phillips, who has twice defeated the district in court, is referred to as a “slut.” The “State Supreme Court [?],” insists the NN, “said” that one may publish such remarks with impunity.
•   The Dissent’s own “Rebel Girl,” referred to as “Rebel Post Menopausal Girl,” is described as having “bad hair.” How odd. In fact, Rebel Girl is decidedly Pre-Menopausal, although I’m no expert. She certainly doesn’t have bad hair. Who does NN think Rebel Girl is?
•   One well-known critic of the Board Majority and the union Old Guard is named and then described as “shaped like a pear.” Inexplicably, his wife is advised to get him some “Viagra.”
•   Classified employee Linda Davies is called a “buttinsky,” having been identified as the “actual compiler” of the Dissent/’Vine. Odd. Linda has never had anything whatsoever to do with the Dissent/’Vine.
•   Roy Bauer, says the NN, “has gone flaccid and neglects his personal appearance.” Again, this is quite odd. Since June, Bauer has lost over 35 pounds.
•   In a section entitled “Most Recent Books They’ve Read,” Anne Cox is said to have just read the book “A Bitch Like Me.”

            —Well, if you like all this talk about sluts and bitches and post-menopausal bad-haired buttinskies, Saddleback’s Nameless Newsletter is the publication for you.

            About a week ago, another unnamed and anonymous publication appeared, again mostly in Saddleback College mailboxes. Its format and crudity suggest that it was published by the same anonymous scribblers who gave us Nameless Newsletter, Volume 1.

Volume 2 comprises a single article—a fantasy “narrated,” from the year 2020, by one “Rip Van Soc.” The piece seeks to ridicule the usual suspects—Bauer, Phillips, Cox, Cosgrove, et alia. In general, we at the Dissent/’Vine are disposed to encourage and applaud competition. Unfortunately, like its predecessor, NN Volume 2 is burdened, not only by very bad writing, but also by confusion and error and a reliance on ad hominems.

The “Rip Van Soc” piece ends with these nifty lines: “I had a rewarding career from which I had retired sometime early in the 21st century, and retired into a state of physical land [sic] emotional comfort. Sometimes we just need to be reminded how good we have it.” --I’m guessing that Dot Fortune is our mystery writer. What’s your guess?

"SLOWLY I TURNED...": FROGUEIAN CHRONICLES II, by Red Emma

Steve, years later, still loving the sound of his own voice above everything

[From Dissent 39, 12/13/99]

"Slowly I turned..."

     by Red Emma

Perhaps, like Red Emma, you are inclined, in unguarded, unnecessarily compassionate moments, to imagine SOCCCD’s cartoonish defenders of malevolence instead as three-dimensional characters, actual human beings with real lives and interests, families and friends. Their performance at last week’s FA rep council meeting perhaps disinclines such empathy.

In fact, I admit that I occasionally imagine them teaching in actual classrooms. That flight of fancy is quickly doomed. Considering any number of them lecturing innocent students on, say, Political Science, I shudder and abandon imagination for facts.

Indeed, some facts are available regarding the real lives of our scofflaw colleagues. Curt, for instance, spends his time thinking about alien life forms (and I don’t mean Lee W). The former Madame President enjoys many a happy hour at Nordstrom’s, annoying the staff and buying colorful St. John’s Knits and coordinated naval accoutrements: epaulets, fobs, and fetters. (“Avast! Here comes the admiral,” warn the innocent Nordstrom’s clerks. “Abandon ship!”) I think that I heard somewhere that El Rey belongs to the Sierra Club. Finally, Steven J. Frogue, ersatz civil libertarian, crows loudly and often about his support of free speech and even Pacifica free speech community radio—Red Emma’s own favorite station (KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles).

Here’s a heartwarming Christmas story: it seems Frogue, our board’s intellectual colossus, also attends fascinating public lectures. Red visited the next door neighbor’s to watch “The Simpsons” on a recent Sunday night. Afterward, his weekly TV appetite not completely dulled, he surfed a bit, stumbling on that sagely entertaining man of American letters, Gore Vidal, giving a talk at the Writers’ Guild. G.V. waxed political on the state of our savage Republic, then fielded a few softball questions and said goodnight.

As is usually the case with these C-SPAN events, the cameras lingered first on the stage, then the crowd, in this case a packed house. I am curious about what America looks like (at least the America that attends remarks by our favorite patrician democrat), and, yes, Dissent readers will have anticipated that, indeed, that evening’s audience included our very own addled co-conspirator, S. Frogue, who was stumbling out of the hall, looking a little confused at being around so many people who didn’t know (or care) who he was. It may seem difficult to conceive of attendance by an apologist for “fiscal conservatism,” a right-wing Republican Holocaust conspiracy nut, a racial exoticizer with a penchant for Jew-Asian-Mormon baiting, at an event critiquing exactly the kind of people as our Mr. Frogue. But, really, it ain’t.

This behavior is, in fact, Classic Frogue and not the first time Red Emma has witnessed the curiously clueless (or is he?) Frogue in full paradoxical action. He is oddly, perhaps sentimentally, inclined toward solidarity for the underdog, the critic, the iconoclast, even while working his magic on the Constitution, Shared Governance, and historical revisionism. I recall UCI student demonstrations supporting affirmative action where, on the day the cops busted up the student shanty town, Steve arrived in his brown suit, helped clean up, and attempted to join an organizing meeting in the Multi-Cultural Center. Here he was, naturally, regarded with suspicion by students. Let’s speculate why: white guy, dresses like a cop, crazy eyes, asks a lot of inane questions…hmmm.

Yet Steve Frogue knows where the ACTION is. (I think I read once that he was a high school history teacher! Go figure.) He identifies somehow with freedom struggles, with campaigns for justice. Why?

People who imagine Frogue lives under a rock miscalculate the extent of his calculations. He genuinely believes himself connected to a thoughtful community of dissent, perhaps even imagining that he is somehow a leader of it: Frogue the freedom fighter. Frogue the defender of difficult political positions. Frogue the civil libertarian.

But, you ask, why even think about Frogue, Red Emma? Why, indeed? Let’s consult Gore Vidal himself, one of Frogue’s unlikely mentors, on the role of Frogues in our district, our community, our political experience:

Of the many words with which the mental therapists have enriched our language, “paranoia” is one of the most used if not useful. According to authority, a paranoiac is one who suffers from delusion of persecution or grandeur. Everyone, of course, has paranoid tendencies. In fact, a sizeable minority of the people in the world maintain sanity by focusing their fears and sense of outrage upon some vague enemy usually referred to simply as “them.” Once the source of distress has been identified as the Jews or the Communists or the Establishment, the moderate paranoiac is then able to function normally—until the magic word is said, as in that famous vaudeville sketch where mention of the town Kokomo makes mad the timid comic, who begins ominously to intone: “Then slowly I turned…”

In this essay (“Paranoid Politics,” United States), Vidal appraises the place of the political paranoiacs (“It is ironic that a nation which has never experienced a coup d’etat would be so obsessed with the idea of conspiracy”), shining considerable light not only on such freaks as Steve (who must have missed this essay) but on the larger problem of a majority of Americans who accept the national chauvinism (Iraq, Panama, Kosovo…) which seems, to their credit, to force the pathetically misdirected, often idealistic multitude to embrace paranoia as socio-political expression. Frustrated, they subscribe to Oliver Stone’s Prevailing Winds, listen to Art Bell, read The Spotlight, and find even in Gore Vidal an ally, simply because he objects to something, to anything at all, as the rest of us accept institutional abuse of power, corporatism, and, in our own sorry district, a Nazi, a homophobe, and two supporters of the Christian Coalition.

In the spirit, then, of real life, I ask those colleagues of mine who regularly embrace paranoia and delusions of grandeur (“I can’t risk my job”) to more fairly and honestly assess their own political power. You have it. The reason you have it is because Administration counts on you not using it. “Hypocrisy,” chanted the late Allen Ginsberg, “is the key to self-fulfilling prophecy.” In other words, just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not going to get you anyway.

Finally, it’s not that Steve is wrong, it’s that he’s right…wing. He makes his foolish, reactionary political choices based on the cowardice of others, smart people who too often choose to ignore where the ACTION is. Just now the action is at a community college district in South Orange County, a momentary political Kokomo, where reside lots of good people who should not only know, but DO better. --RE

Andrew Tonkovich

THE ANTI-DISSENT, TOILET PAPER, & OLD GUARD SHENANIGANS by Chunk Wheeler

[From Dissent 39 (12/13/99)] by Chunk Wheeler 

1. Saddleback’s Nameless Newsletter. 

The Dissent/’Vine has evidently inspired one or two anonymous “response” publications, which have appeared of late in some faculty mailboxes. The first of these nameless documents surfaced, mostly at Saddleback College, around the time of the last Accrediting team visit. Here are some “highlights” from that initial publication: 

•  Saddleback College Academic senate president Anne Cox is described as “the queen of 80’s hair.” Evidently referring to physical attractiveness, the Nameless Newsletter (NN) opines, apparently without irony, that Cox is “no competition for the President of the Board.” The latter —viz., Dorothy Fortune—is described as “a snappy dresser [who] looks great on TV.” 
•  Inexplicably, IVC Anthropology instructor Wendy Phillips, who has twice defeated the district in court, is referred to as a “slut.” The “State Supreme Court [?],” insists the NN, “said” that one may publish such remarks with impunity. 
•  The Dissent’s own “Rebel Girl,” referred to as “Rebel Post Menopausal Girl,” is described as having “bad hair.” How odd. In fact, Rebel Girl is decidedly Pre-Menopausal, although I’m no expert. She certainly doesn’t have bad hair. Who does NN think Rebel Girl is? 
•  One well-known critic of the Board Majority and the union Old Guard is named and then described as “shaped like a pear.” Inexplicably, his wife is advised to get him some “Viagra.” 
•  Classified employee Linda Davies is called a “buttinsky,” having been identified as the “actual compiler” of the Dissent/’Vine. Odd. Linda has never had anything whatsoever to do with the Dissent/’Vine. 
•  Roy Bauer, says the NN, “has gone flaccid and neglects his personal appearance.” Again, this is quite odd. Since June, Bauer has lost over 35 pounds. 
•  In a section entitled “Most Recent Books They’ve Read,” Anne Cox is said to have just read the book “A Bitch Like Me.” 

    —Well, if you like all this talk about sluts and bitches and post-menopausal bad-haired buttinskies, Saddleback’s Nameless Newsletter is the publication for you. 

    About a week ago, another unnamed and anonymous publication appeared, again mostly in Saddleback College mailboxes. Its format and crudity suggest that it was published by the same anonymous scribblers who gave us Nameless Newsletter, Volume 1. Volume 2 comprises a single article—a fantasy “narrated,” from the year 2020, by one “Rip Van Soc.” The piece seeks to ridicule the usual suspects—Bauer, Phillips, Cox, Cosgrove, et alia. In general, we at the Dissent/’Vine are disposed to encourage and applaud competition. Unfortunately, like its predecessor, NN Volume 2 is burdened, not only by very bad writing, but also by confusion and error and a reliance on ad hominems. The “Rip Van Soc” piece ends with these nifty lines: “I had a rewarding career from which I had retired sometime early in the 21st century, and retired into a state of physical land [sic] emotional comfort. Sometimes we just need to be reminded how good we have it.” 

   —I’m guessing that Dot Fortune is our mystery writer. What’s your guess? 

[INSERT: 12/16/1999, LA TIMES Newsletters lampoon college faculty, officials They satirize relations between professors and community college district. By RENEE MOILANEN

MISSION VIEJO—Two mysterious newsletters with “insulting” references to certain faculty leaders appeared in Saddleback College staff mailboxes in the last few weeks, an apparent response to satirical newsletters published by an Irvine Valley College professor…Both newsletters were anonymous…[Saddleback Academic Senate President Anne] Cox said she received the first newsletter a few weeks ago. “It’s insulting. It’s banal,” she said, adding that it characterizes exactly the problems between the district and college faculties. “Ugly, vicious personal attacks flourish and are encouraged by the leadership in the district,” she said…. [Bob] Cosgrove, a self-described “outspoken critic” of the board, called the newsletters “juvenile.” “They’re unsigned, which tells the people are gutless,” he said. Chancellor Cedric Sampson said he’d seen only one of the newsletters. “There are points and counterpoints to faculty opinion. I don’t think that’s unusual,” he said.

END OF INSERT.] 

2. Read All About It. 

 The Dec. 3 issue of the OC Weekly contains the following: 

South Orange County Community College District trustees on Nov. 22 decided to appeal a court ruling favorable to Roy Bauer. The Irvine Valley College (IVC) professor publishes rabble-rousing newsletters that hilariously lampoon a board and administration that does a damn fine job of hilariously lampooning itself (Nazi sympathizers attending board meetings, homophobic political mailers in trustee elections, faculty fuckheads willing to sell their souls for coin—such a hoot!). Bauer’s bosses tried to force him to seek therapy because, they alleged, his Vine and Dissent newsletters were filled with violence and hatred. Bauer sued on First Amendment grounds. The district countersued, claiming employees had been threatened physically in what friends and foes affectionately refer to as the “Unabauer Manifesto.” But the judge sided with Bauer—in humorous fashion. When the district tried to make hay out of a comment in one newsletter that stated the author wanted to drop “a 2-ton slate of polished granite” on the IVC president’s head, the judge dismissed it as pure hyperbole, noting, “Think of the logistics!” So now the not-so-appealing district is appealing, even though Bauer’s court record against them is a solid 3-0. Two other cases involved the board’s cavalier violations of the state’s open-meetings law (we forgot to include those with the “District Lampooning Itself” examples). Defending the appeal motion, Chancellor Cedric Sampson says he wants to defuse workplace hostilities in an era when not only postal workers go postal. Subliminal message to Bauer: ixnay on the ackblay enchcoattray. 

3. TP Deficit. 

   An IVC classified employee has sent me a list of recent purchases by the Board Majority’s own Raghu P. Mathur: 

New office phone: $500 4 outdoor signs: $6,820 6 posting display cases: $2,400 “Attitude” posters : $1,200 1 Self-improvement book: $70 Tapes on dealing with problematic people: $48 

 The outdoor signs, I’m told, are actually designed for indoor use and will soon deteriorate. Raghu doesn’t care. The list’s provider also noted that, normally, 125 cases of toilet paper are purchased each year. This year, however, Mathur, facing a self-inflicted budget crisis, has purchased only 75 cases, despite protests. Further, he has decided not to repair the college’s large lawn mower until July. Classified insiders think Raghu’s an idiot. 

4. Old Guard shenanigans. 

    As you know, the union Old Guard has refused to open its books as regards the notorious PAC. The PAC Committee—the sneeky crowd who brought us Fortune, Frogue, Williams, Padberg, and Wagner—comprises former presidents (Sherry, Curt, Lee, et al.). Despite repeated demands, this group steadfastly refuses to cooperate with the Treasurer and the CTA auditor. During the Faculty Association “Rep Council” meeting of the 6th—a meeting attended by both the CCA President and Vice President (CCA is the community college division of CTA)—Roni L, union Treasurer, distributed a handout with her report. It said: 

“Our local’s annual PERB financial report was due on 10/30/99. Despite requests to the PAC Committee for bank statements required to properly complete the forms, no communication or documents from the PAC Committee were received. The financial report was completed with information that the Treasurer had based on General funds; an asterisked statement was added to the report as follows: The amounts indicated do not include assets and liabilities for the Association-supported PAC account. Neither the Treasurer (who first took office 2/99) nor the President (who took office 5/99) has been able to obtain records for that account, though numerous attempts have been made and continue to be made. “The deadline for filing of financial forms is January 15, 2000. It is imperative that PAC financial records for fiscal year 98-99 be obtained prior to that date so that the forms can be filed. A statement similar to the one above is not acceptable for such filings. Consider: if the Executive Committee and the independent auditor are unable to retrieve required documents through formal requests, what are our legal next steps? “…An audit cannot be conducted until paperwork is gathered…Therefore, the first priority will be to gather documents for this time period so that David Marian [the CTA auditor]…can create a financial picture of the organization. Many of the local’s general documents have been given to [CTA’s] Margaret Hoyos and are in “a box.” The bulk of missing information relates to the PAC accounts; there is nothing in “the box” about these accounts. To this end, Mr. Mariam will be working with Mike Channing and Sherry Miller-White (and possibly others), former Treasurers of the PAC (or signatories on FPPC filings for the PAC) during those two fiscal years, to gather bank statements and other filings for the PAC…. “Sharon MacMillan has sent a letter to former Presidents (the “PAC Committee”) indicating the Rep. Council’s directive to assist the Treasurer in obtaining documents necessary to carry out Treasurer duties and to name a contact person for communication about such documents. The letter specifically requested that any PAC financial statements for the period of the audit be sent to the Treasurer.” 

   During the meeting, Roni asserted that it is “outrageous” that, after many months, the auditor still hasn’t received the requested records from the PAC Committee. She is “incredibly frustrated,” she added. Some in the room felt that legal action must now be taken. Roni seemed to agree. Later, CTA’s David Lebow nervously asserted that CTA is taking “all legal measures necessary to get” the needed PAC records. Margaret Hoyos, the regional CTA staffer, made similar noises. Lee shouted, “Hi Ho!” Throughout these discussions, Curt McClendon, Old Guard crony par excellence and PAC Committee member, appeared repeatedly to justify and defend the Committee’s unresponsiveness. At one point, Lebow had had enough; he shouted at Curt. Naturally, nearly everyone in the room broke into applause. Sharon started to cry, I think--but who can tell? Toward the end of the meeting, Julie noted that, at IVC, despite the board’s campaign to reduce administration, we now have more administrators than ever. Indeed, as things stand, IVC has more managers than Saddleback, which is twice its size. Someone proposed a resolution against the “proliferation of administrative positions” and the “transformation of faculty positions into administrative positions.” Saddleback faculty noted, however, that, on their campus, there are still far too few administrators—a legacy of the Board’s idiotic reorganization of two years ago. In the end, the following inelegant motion passed: “The Faculty Association does not support the proliferation of administrative positions at IVC, specifically the Director of Supportive Services position, or the transformation of faculty positions into administrative positions at IVC.” 

5. Senator Joe Mathur. 

      As you know, IVC’s Raghu P. Mathur has recently gone after an untenured instructor who dared to criticize the Imperial President. His alleged crime? —Helping his tenured colleagues name a garden. Now, Mathur is going after other faculty critics—one for “violating the chain of command” (Huh?), another for allegedly planning a protest. About two weeks ago, Wendy Phillips was instructed to meet with Mathur concerning her supposed role in planning a student activity on October 28th. In fact, Wendy had no role. Nevertheless, she met with Mathur, accompanied by a lawyer, as a vigil, including about 15 faculty and students, was held outside the meeting room. Mathur, evidently disappointed with Wendy’s account of her conduct during the interrogation, moved to plan B: he asked her to name names of students who had allegedly planned the protest. On her lawyer’s advice, she did not comply. 

6. New lawyers/Tustin base. 

      During the “special meeting” of the 7th, the board voted unanimously to hire a new law firm: Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo. I’ve asked around: the firm has a reputation for sleaziness; it specializes in “firing people.” On the 7th, representatives of the firm were treated like conquering heroes. On the 8th, one of the heroes was spotted on a tour of IVC postings with Raghu. He scowled. The trustees also discussed a possible name for the Tustin Base complex. A classified guy leaned over to me and whispered, “How about Black Hole Money Pit?” I snorted. Frogue’s suggestion wasn’t much better. He urged the board to adopt the name, “South Orange County Community College District Marine Memorial Center.” Marcia thought about that for a minute. Then she said, “How ‘bout somethin’ short and sweet?” They also fired a guy that night. But my back is killing me, and I’ve gotta stop. Happy freakin’ holidays. —CW [Roy]

Miss Fortune's guide to Holiday Giving!

Hey Kids! Someone asked MISS FORTUNE for her Guide to Holiday Giving! And here it is!

[D39 12/13/99]

If you’re anything like me (and you are if you’re a confused, opportunistic, reactionary, gay-baiting Reagan Democrat in Republican South County), you’re wondering just what to get for those special little elves who’ve done their darndest to make every day a holiday at IVC and Saddleback.

Yes, it’s the giving season. Here, then, are Miss Fortune’s modest gift-giving suggestions:

Give Sharon a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order.
Give Cedric a goddam clue.
Give Lee Walker a pick, a lantern, and those cute little shorts, hi ho!
Give Curt a colonic.
Give Caroline seat restraints.
Give Raghu the clap.
Give Frogue Poland and the Sudetenlands.
Give Sherry a job with Cal Trans (as a traffic cone).
Give Mas a No-Doz.
Give Bob an orphanage.
Give El Rey jail time.
Give Dean Gensler another B.A. (and a coupla No-Doz).
Give the CTA a spine.
Give Howard…Walter.
Give Glenn a muscle relaxant.
Give Armando a copy of the First Amendment.
Give Walter…Howard.

And, while you’re at it (and you know who you are), don’t forget to…

Give Bobbie a new boss. Give Roni the Box of Financial Records. Give Adjunct Faculty a paid office hour and proportional representation on the Rep Council. Give Miss Fortune a challenger in the next election (who isn’t Bill Jay). And give us each and every one Shared Governance and a democratic, progressive, just local that makes us proud to be educators at a public, non-corporate community college.

Happy Holidays!

ZANELLI, PAM.

ZANELLI, PAM.
(From The Dissenter’s Dictionary, 1999)

See also "Remember Pam Zanelli?"

     Zanelli first appeared on the district scene as a consultant for the Faculty Association (union) in 1996. In its October '96 newsletter, the Faculty Association leadership explained that, owing to retiring trustee Harriett Walther's successes waging a campaign in support of Dave Lang and other trustee candidates (in reality, these campaign efforts were the work of a PAC known as "Partners in Education" [PIE] with which Walther was associated), it was forced to seek professional help in promoting the candidacies of the union's Frogue, Williams, Fortune, and Davis: "Because the faculty association has its back to the wall we have turned our campaign over to a professional firm which will try to pick up the pieces." The firm was Zanelli Consulting, which received $4,200 for its work (v. OC Weekly, 4/10/98).
     By her own admission, it was Zanelli who advised the union leadership that "domestic partner benefits" are a hot-button isssue in South Orange County that might be useful to them. Thus, at union president Sherry Miller-White's direction, tens of thousands of fliers were sent to south county homes, alerting the public that "SAME-SEX 'MARRIAGE'" benefits would soon be provided for district employees if PIE candidates are elected. According to Dave Lang of the PIE slate, however, none of the PIE candidates ran using domestic partner benefits as an issue. (Lariat, 12/5/96)
Miller-White's decision to use the Zanelli-inspired flier naturally produced widespread expressions of outrage from faculty and the community and further divided an already-divided faculty.
     According to the OC Weekly, "After the '96 election, Zanelli landed another job that placed her close to the Gang of Four. Her consulting group was hired by the board to look into the district's public-information program in the wake of the Jews-killed-Kennedy incident. After the consultants' report--foes say it cost taxpayers $15,000--was handed to the board, Zanelli was hired as an in-house consultant, serving as the district's media spokesperson and providing political expertise. Frogue's opponents call her ‘a $5,000-per-month spin doctor,’ referring to the amount she's reportedly paid and the information she's dispensing. The board voted on March 23 to turn it into a full-time position." (4/10/98)
     At the time, Zanelli declared that she would not seek the position. But she did seek it and was hired.
     As a district flack, Zanelli has committed her share of gaffs over the years. In February of '98, Acting Chancellor Hodge distributed a memo to administrators alerting them that "Without my authorization, a District Press Release was sent out...today. The release, titled 'Weapons Confiscated at SOCCCD Board Meeting,' has the potential of being frightening to our students and the community...." Zanelli had authored and sent out the press release.
     A day later, the Times ran an article entitled, "Knife, Pepper Spray are Found at Meeting." According to the article, "Campus police confiscated a 9-inch folding knife and a small canister of pepper spray from a man attending a SOCCCD board meeting last week. The seizure came amid tighter security measures in response to controversy surrounding a seminar Trustee Steven J. Frogue proposed last year on the assassination of President Kennedy...'We want people to know they are safe at these meetings and they wll not be disrupted for any reason,' campus spokeswoman Pam Zanelli said." (Times, 2/20/98)

WILLIAMS, JOHN. (A.k.a. "Brown Boy," "PE Boy")

WILLIAMS, JOHN. (A.k.a. "Brown Boy," "PE Boy")
(From The Dissenter’s Dictionary, 1999)

     A trustee since 1992; a key member of the BOARD MAJORITY and arguably its most ruthless member. In a closed board meeting on July 16, 1997, without warning, the BM reorganized the district, eliminating faculty School Chairs at IVC and replacing them with Saddleback deans, leaving Saddleback College woefully under-administered. In a secret memo sent to his colleagues on July 11, Williams had recommended the reorganization, citing as his primary rationale the chairs' failure to "display loyalty, courtesy, and willingness to participate as...member[s] of the leadership team." After the 16th of July, however, he and other Board Majoritarians claimed that they were motivated essentially by fiscal concerns. (An IVC Academic Senate report later largely refuted the claim that the reorganization had fiscal benefits, particularly at IVC.)
     During the BM's subsequent (and unsuccessful) effort to defend themselves against the charge that they had violated the Brown Act, Williams and his cohorts stated that the reorganization hadn't occurred without warning, that it had been discussed with shared governance groups and with the public--something all district observers knew to be false. Thus, in a sworn declaration, Williams asserted that "On July 8, 1997, the Board held a public forum for the purpose of hearing statements regarding the subject of organization or reorganization." In fact, however, those who actually attended the forum know that it had no such purpose. Indeed, Williams' own remarks during the forum refute his assertion, for he said: "I came [to the forum] today, and if there is one thing that I would ask the group and throw something out, it has to do with 'Where is this district going as far as growth money, and with this growth where are we going to put the students?' We need to grow!" (In a letter to the district attorney dated 9/3/97, trustee Lang asserts that, before the reorganization occurred, none of the shared governance groups were consulted, a point he later repeated under oath.)

     Prior to Raghu P. Mathur's permanent appointment as IVC president in September of '97, Williams, in an egregious violation of the state's open meetings laws, attempted (unsuccessfully) to broker a deal between the BM and the Board Minority--one in which two administrators (liked by the minority, but hated by the Old Guard and Raghu Mathur in particular) would have their contracts renewed in exchange for the minority's not opposing Mathur's appointment. Indeed, in a legal declaration, Williams himself writes that "Prior to the September 8, 1997, Board meeting, I spoke to Trustee David Lang...and told him I hoped that the Board's appointment to a position as significant as president of IVC would be unanimous or at least unopposed...I asked Mr. Lang whether it would be possible to reach a compromise on the Mathur appointment with the Board members who opposed his appointment." It was just such acts that led Judge Seymour later to write that the board had engaged in "persistent and defiant misconduct" relative to the Brown Act.
     During the '98 trustee race, Williams, as board president, invited only Wagner and Padberg (the Old Guard's candidates) to a Saddleback College Emeritus vocal performance (by the "Kool Kats"). Only Wagner and Padberg's names appeared in the printed program. Del Curry, the president of the Kats, had asked Williams to contact and invite all of the trustee candidates. "We wanted to get everybody that we possibly could to come," he said. Williams attended the concert with Wagner and Padberg, who handed out campaign fliers.

     According to Fair Political Practice Commission spokesperson Gary Huckaby, "If officials do not invite all of the candidates to an event, the action is considered a contribution to the campaign...The penalty for illegal contributions is $2,000 for each instance."
     The OC Jewish Heritage reported that Williams, Wagner, and district employee Pam Zanelli met during the summer prior to the '98 election to discuss strategy for Wagner's campaign--this is confirmed by Wagner. According to the FPPC's Huckaby, the law states that "No public official shall give and no candidate shall accept public funds or public resources, including public employees on the clock."
     One more thing: according to several sworn declarations by then-IVC administrators, in early September, 1997, Lang called a meeting, attended by the administrators, in which he (Lang) presented Williams' proposed deal regarding Mathur's appointment as IVC president. According to one declaration, "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." The other declarations confirm this.
     Now that's sleazy.

WATCH LIST (1997).

WATCH LIST (1997).
(From The Dissenter’s Dictionary, 1999)

     The South Orange County Community College District was placed on the state chancellor's "priority 3" fiscal watch list way back in March, 1996. In November of '97, however, it joined two other districts statewide by being placed on the more worrisome "priority 2" watch list, owing mostly to a dip in budget reserve to only 1.2% and five straight years of deficit spending.
     Self-styled "fiscal conservatives" John Williams and Steven Frogue served on the board during this entire period. They had also consistently supported faculty salary raises.
     At the time that the district was placed at priority 2, 88% of its budget went to salaries and benefits, allowing it to have--by far--the highest pay scale in the state. The state-wide average for salaries and benefits was 83%.
     In a November '97 editorial, an alarmed Irvine World News asked, "who has been watching the store in the South Orange County district...?" The IWN also remarked upon the Board Majority's vaunted July '97 reorganization, which was alleged to have saved the district big money: "[W]hile the four-member board majority was patting itself on the back for saving a purported $1 million by shaking up the administrative structure of IVC, the real figures show any savings were no more than a quarter of that, not counting legal costs the move engendered. Taking into account those legal hassles, the move likely will end up costing the district money." A careful examination by the IVC faculty senate later revealed that the reorganization in fact cost the college money.
     The district was finally removed from the watch list in the Fall of '99.

SHARED GOVERNANCE.

SHARED GOVERNANCE.
(From The Dissenter’s Dictionary, 1999)

     In American universities, the notion that professors (and students) should play a role in the governance of their institutions--which traces back to the American Association of University Professor's widely-embraced 1966 "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities"--has been a cherished tradition, but, by the 80s, it was under attack by trustees and presidents and was otherwise threatened, owing to political pressures, increasing competition, and increasing reliance on adjunct professors, who, typically, have played no role in governance. By 1991, the assault became so serious that the AAUP began a "blacklist" of institutions that violated shared governance--e.g., those in which the board or the president made unilateral decisions concerning tenure or curriculum.
     In the 80s, Californians finally legislated shared governance for the community colleges there (AB 1725), but this did not prevent the system from suffering the same tensions between partisans of faculty empowerment, on the one hand, and those who wished to run colleges like corporations with obedient "employees," on the other. By late 1997, SOCCCD became the poster child of the system's shared governance wars, though, in many ways, the problems of the district were unique. Indeed, they were bizarre--what with its Holocaust-denying trustee (Frogue), an illiterate and brazenly autocratic college president (Mathur), and its gay-bashing union (the Faculty Association). Adding another bizarre twist, in late '98, owing to support from the faculty union PAC, two trustees joined the board who were affiliated with Education Alliance, a Religious Right group whose leader, Mark Bucher, was the chief advocate and author of Proposition 226, the 1998 initiative that sought to remove unions as players in California politics. (See the CHRISTIAN RIGHT.)
     Generally, in public, the "Board Majority" has claimed to embrace shared governance--while claiming also that the faculty fail to understand their role within it. On occasion, however, Board Majoritarians have explicitly expressed their rejection of shared governance. For instance, during the May '97 Board meeting, Mr. Frogue, then president of the Board, distributed a brief essay of his entitled "Comments on Shared Governance" in which he asserted that shared governance is "dysfunctional" and does not "work." He noted that 200,000 voters cast ballots for the four victorious trustee candidates in November (of '96) and that the Academic Senate presidents were chosen by a handful of faculty. He seemed to suggest that, as a consequence, the Academic Senate presidents should have only a minor role in district and college governance.
     In fact, starting in December of '96, the BM-dominated Board ceased even pretending to consider the advice of faculty as expressed through its agents, the faculty senates, though it seemed often to do the bidding of the union Old Guard, whose members were sometimes appointed as administrators and whose "enemies" among administrators were removed or otherwise encouraged to seek employment elsewhere.
     Meanwhile, the district's "Shared Governance Leadership Handbook" (of Fall '96) stated, "The Saddleback Community College District Board of Trustees fully supports AB 1725 and the spirit of shared governance. Implementation of shared governance in the SCCD is through a structure of councils and governance units designed to ensure all entities the right to participate effectively in district and college policy making."

     Central to the Board's support of shared governance is its adherence to Board Policy 2100.1--"Delegation of Authority to the Academic Senate"--which, in response to Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, mandates that "the governing board delegates to the college academic senates responsibility for and authority over academic and professional matters." As of writing (1/20/00), that policy is still in effect. Nevertheless, in recent years, the board has failed to delegate authority to the senates, illustrated by its apparent determination to foist upon Saddleback College a soccer program--a curriculum matter--despite the faculty recommendation to the contrary, and the Board's repeated failure to explain in writing its failure to accept Academic Senate recommendations (on matters over which the body is given authority by 2100.1), as per the board policy.
     Perhaps the nadir of SG has now occurred (early 2000), with the initiative to modify BP 2100.1. "The board," said Sampson, "felt it delegated too much authority to the faculties and it needs to clarify and correct some of the policies" (Times, 11/27/99). Hence, Sampson expressed his intention to recommend changing the faculty senates' role from "authority over" academic and professional matters to "responsibility for advising the board" concerning them.
     During the December '99 board meeting, Sampson was asked whether the board was able unilaterally to change the policy in this fashion. His answer: "Yes." In fact, however, BP 2100.1 states that "This policy is a mutual agreement between the governing board and the academic senates and may be modified upon mutual consent of the parties." Nonetheless, it now appears inevitable that the Board will act to change the policy without the consent of the faculty senates.

"SAME-SEX" FLIER (1996)

"SAME-SEX" FLIER (1996)
(From The Dissenter’s Dictionary, 1999)

     This flier--distributed to tens of thousands of Republican households--is widely credited with securing Williams, Fortune, and Frogue's '96 election victories. At the time, union consultant Pam Zanelli--now chief district PR person--recommended exploitation of the "domestic partners" issue, even though (a) the opposing trustee slate did not run on this issue, (b) CTA, which provided the chapter with campaign funds, officially favors domestic partner benefits, and (c) domestic partner benefits are properly a union, not a trustee, initiative. The flier contained figures concerning the cost of domestic partner benefits that bore no relation to reality. None of the beneficiaries of the flier--including long-time Democrat Dorothy Fortune--ever disowned it.
     Union president Sherry Miller-White's decision to use the Zanelli-inspired flier naturally produced an outpouring of outrage from faculty. In response, the leadership began its campaign of simultaneously defending its action and blaming Zanelli for it. According to the post-election union newsletter, "The Faculty Association was forced to compete in the past campaign because life as we know it was under threat...[T]he Faculty Association, in desperation, turned the campaign over to a professional firm. All the information and literature of the PIE group was turned over to the professionals who developed the campaign...[T]he professionals said that many Democratic and Republican races across the nation were debating [the domestic partners issue] and that the public should not be kept in the dark about the full PIE agenda...." Also in the newsletter, Miller-White writes: "During the election, we were all in a fight for our existence as we know it. With all of this at risk, it became my responsibility as president to do the best I could [to] prevent this from happening...The unfortunate recent campaign war was necessitated solely by those opposing or threatening our contract. Even though the job as President of the faculty association is extremely difficult and requires a lot of self sacrifice, knowing that our immediate future is secure makes it all worth while."
     During a forum in January of '97, Sherry Miller-White explicitly acknowledged having approved the flier, even though it was, she said, "too homophobic for me." Nevertheless, she explained, the use of such tactics was necessary to protect "life as we know it." She refused to apologize for her decision, thus providing members no reason to suppose that she would not use such tactics again. Indeed, during the trustee race of '98, Miller-White and her cronies helped secure the victories of two anti-teachers union candidates, using a flier that argued, absurdly, that the two would help stop the El Toro airport.

REORGANIZATION (“REORG”), THE (1997).

REORGANIZATION (“REORG”), THE (1997).
(From The Dissenter’s Dictionary, 1999)

It was all illegal of course

     During a closed board meeting on July 16, 1997, the board majority, amid protests by the board minority (each of whom walked out), boldly reorganized the district, eliminating 10 IVC faculty school chairs and replacing them with 5 deans imported from Saddleback College. The action had been agendized as a "personnel action," since, according to the BROWN ACT, such actions are among the few permitted during closed session. Eventually, OC Superior Court Judge Tully Seymour ruled that, through these actions, the board had violated the Brown Act, for it had failed properly to agendize the matter and had engaged in an action--a reorganization--that, by law, must be done in public, not in closed session.
     The reorganization came as a surprise, for (as trustee Lang later explained) neither administrators nor shared governance groups had been consulted, and, indeed, the Sorenson Group (consultants hired to help the district with its organizational problems) strongly advised against the board taking actions absent discussion with shared governance groups. Indeed, at IVC, only days earlier, faculty were assured by Acting President Mathur that no such action would be contemplated until the fall, when faculty returned from summer vacation. In fact, however, Mathur was the key figure in the planning and execution of the reorganization, and his assurances were lies. All of this is revealed in legal declarations provided in connection with Bauer II.
     In a sworn declaration dated 9/8/98, Bob Loeffler (then IVC VP of Business Services) writes that, "In May of 1997, during an executive meeting of the three VPs and interim President Mathur, Mathur directed VP Burgess to develop a plan for the reorganization of the administrative structure of the college. Mathur...wanted VP [Terry] Burgess to develop a plan to institute a 'Dean Model' for the College." According to Burgess, when he then placed the topic of reorganization on the agenda for discussion at a May 13, 1997, Instructional Council meeting, he received a formal reprimand from Mathur: "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." Mathur then directed Burgess to "inform the Instructional Council that he would accept their recommendation to delay the planning process relevant to the reorganization until...the faculty, staff, and students returned from summer break."

     But the secret planning continued: "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...Since I knew that...Mathur's public announcement to delay the planning process was deceptive, when I developed the administrative reorganization plan..., I modified the names of the academic divisions [e.g., the name of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences] so that I could subsequently identify my work...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." (From a legal declaration, 9/11/98.)
     The BM's motives for the reorganization were probably complex. The school chairs, as faculty, could express objections to BM (and Mathurian) policies and actions with near impunity, and this the autocratic BM could not abide. At the same time, the Old Guard has aways hated IVC's school chair model, perhaps owing to its blurring of the line between faculty and administration. Further, in a faculty chair system, faculty are empowered, but only insofar as they participate in governance, which lazy faculty--those represented by the Old Guard, especially at IVC--are unlikely to do. Thus, do-nothing faculty inevitably views the faculty chair system as "inequitable."
     At a board meeting on January 25, 1999, Trustee Fortune acknowledged that the July '97 reorganization was "too extreme" in its creation of "big divisions."