[Originally entitled, “The Gavel Queen of South County”]
The Oct. 25 board meeting:
I showed up on time at 6:00 p.m., but the meeting hadn’t started, so I bullshat with the usual suspects, who seemed even grimmer than usual.At about 7:00, the meeting was finally under way. Trustee Wagner reported that no action had been taken during the preceding closed session.
After Nancy Padberg led us in the pledge, Dave Lang did the invocation, quoting somebody about the “dullard” who waits until events overtake him before he does anything. He was talking about the dullards on the board, I suppose.
Next came public comments. A woman named Nancy read a resolution by the Saddleback Academic Senate that objected to the board’s “unwise” soccer initiative. Why was the board ignoring the recommendations of the faculty? it asked.
The chancellor [Cedric Sampson], with typical galootishness, responded, blandly dismissing the resolution, which he termed “misguided.” Against the notion, voiced by Nancy, that the board is normally obliged to take the advice of the faculty in matters concerning curriculum, he said that the senate makes recommendations, that’s all. He added that he’d respond more fully later on.
Trustees’ reports:
Next came trustees’ reports, always a highpoint. As per usual, trustee Williams seemed terribly pleased with himself. He played to the camera. He reported on the Saddleback College “homecoming” and its “king” and “queen.” At first I thought he was joking, but no one laughed. Goddamit, I thought.
Trustee Milchiker announced that her mom was “taking opera” through the Emeritus Program. Trustee Lang congratulated Lee Haggerty, Saddleback teacher of the year, and IVC’s Bill Hewitt, whose program has achieved “national recognition.”
I noticed that Cedric looked pale and drawn. Earlier that day, in Los Angeles, a federal judge decided that Cedric had indeed violated the Constitutional rights of a certain IVC philosophy professor. El Ced looked bad then, too.
Trustee Wagner was in finger-wagging mode. The Senate’s resolution, said he with utter confidence, was “factually inaccurate.” The board, he proclaimed, is not acting “out of its jurisdiction” at all. It gets to decide about programs.
Referring to the senate, he acknowledged that “the board does not see things the way they do.”
That, of course, was plain.
You’ll recall that Wagner and Padberg, both right-winged foes of teachers unions, were elected in ‘98 thanks to (1) big moneyed support from the Old Guard-controlled faculty union (the rank and file watched in horror) and (2) an absurd Wagberg promise to be the battling anti-airport trustees. Of course, trustees have absolutely no say on the airport. On this night, Mr. Wagner dumped another bucket of this hogwash on everyone, for he asked the Chancellor whether the district has secured an “associate membership” in the anti-airport organization.
Not one to be out-NIMBYed by this upstart, Trustee Frogue reminded everyone in TV land that he, yes he, sponsored a board resolution opposing the airport way back in ’96! He went on to explain that he has been spending part of his Thursday’s at IVC. Hinting at conspiracies, he noted that, during his last visit there, an ASG event “just happened to be cancelled that day.” Oooooh.
He said he bought a pumpkin. He also purchased a hotdog from the Humanitarian Club. (Evidently, the club’s humanitarianism doesn’t extend to animals.) And he visited with the Christian Club. No word on what he bought from them.
Affecting a pained expression, the Froguester noted how hard it was to talk and be heard in front of SSC, what with the loud amplified music. There oughta be an “investigation” into whether that infernal racket disrupts classes, he said. I can’t be sure, but I believe that, at that moment, Steve began to think about that damn pumpkin and what might be inside it. He scribbled a note to himself.
Trustee Padberg spoke of a trustees’ convention she attended in Atlanta. CNN’s Judy Woodruff was there, she said.
Trustee Fortune noted trustee Williams’ “excellent” op-ed piece in the Times. Seconds later, the chancellor echoed the sentiment.
I wondered what [district PR flack] Pam Zanelli was thinking.
In his report, IVC President Raghu “90%” [faculty “no confidence”] Mathur noted that the forensics team had won big again. He talked of sports and the new theatrical production, “Good News.” Naturally, he joined the others in praising the loathsome Williams for his shitty op-ed piece.
Saddleback President Dixie Bullock yammered. She said she was “disappointed” with the Saddleback Academic Senate and its danged resolution.
Next, Saddleback ASG officers busily prepared a production number designed to report on their budget. The Bumptious One started to worry; suddenly, she spat that “the report will not exceed 15 minutes unless it’s very very interesting.” People laughed and Dot looked surprised.
At some point, she declared that item 32—discussion of the speech and advocacy policy—was pulled. Damn! That’s what I had come for!
…I left.
Thornage:I shoulda stayed. It turns out that Saddleback Academic Senate President Anne “Thorny” Cox clashed big time with the Dotted and Besotted One. Luckily, they’re videotaping these meetings, and so I viewed the whole thing in the comfort of my home. I made popcorn.
Here’s the transcript. It starts with Anne’s Senate report, which objected to the board’s decision, based on Sampson’s alleged “Brown Act” worries, to pull the plug on a long-awaited Saddleback board forum:
COX: The Academic Senate at Saddleback College appears to be a thorn in the side of the board this evening, and I regret that I will continue in that role. [She holds up a document, which she has just distributed among trustees.] This is a memo from the Senate, which I’ve written on their behalf to members of the board of trustees and chancellor Cedric [devilishly pronounced See-drik] Sampson regarding the Board Forum. [She reads:]
On behalf of the Academic Senate, I feel I must convey to you the deep regret and perplexity caused by the decision of the trustees on the recommendation of the chancellor to not participate in the board forum which was to have taken place last Thursday, Oct. 21st. The notion of renewing this long-established practice of an open meeting between faculty, staff, administration and trustees seems particularly urgent in the current climate of the district and the two colleges and has been discussed at some length with several of the trustees since last spring. Indeed, the idea was received most enthusiastically by trustees Padberg and Wagner when I first suggested it last March. Since then, there’s been a great deal of discussion [and] coordination of dates and preferences. For example, trustee Fortune prefers that the forum be limited to Saddleback faculty and staff rather than a district-wide meeting. [Zing!]
But in all of this discussion, the concern of violating the Brown Act was never mentioned by anyone. Indeed, the so-called Brown Act is more accurately called the California Open Meeting Act, and the whole point of a forum is that it is an open, public meeting—completely consistent with the spirit of the Brown Act.
In the report of the Accrediting team that has resulted in the continuation of a warning status of this once-respected college [D’ough!], the direction was very clear. Representatives of all the formally recognize constituent groups—that is, trustees, chief executive officers, administrators, faculty senate and union, classified senate and union, and student government—must come together soon. Their task should be to determine how they will reduce the hostility, mistrust, cynicism, and despair which plague the institution currently, adding that this recommendation requires special emphasis and immediate action.
The report goes on to say that “the team found that there has been minimal contact between the entire board of trustees or chancellor and the college faculty, staff, and mid-managers.” It adds [that] it was especially disconcerting that, following the commission’s action, so many people in leadership positions expended energy denying any responsibility for the situation and blaming the outcome on others.
The original recommendation calling for all segments, including the college and district leadership and the board of trustees, to work together to develop and implement a plan to improve the situation continues to be a high priority. [Time is called.]
COX: “I’ll ask for the same 30 seconds.” [She is referring to the extra 30 seconds that had been granted to trustees when they exceeded their 5 minute limit.]
FORTUNE: [Same] as what?
COX: As the trustees in their reports.
FORTUNE: As the trustees? At your same level? [Fortune snorts or laughs.]
[Anne continues:] The senate believes that a board forum would begin to address this serious and legitimate concern of the Accreditation Commission. The chancellor and the board evidently disagree. And since the answer to the Accreditation Commission is due one week from today, the Academic Senate is respectfully asking the chancellor and the board of trustees [this question:], where is your plan?
Thank you. [Anne takes her seat.]
FORTUNE: I know we would all love to say one thing or another, but I would like to have the 2nd president of the other Academic Senate from Irvine Valley College [speak]. Mr. Peter Morrison—please also take your [report] time.
MORRISON: [We won’t be having] a regular senate meeting this week. I just wanted to let you know that, instead, we are conducting a faculty-wide survey on issues related to the Accreditation reports, and we will be finishing that survey at the end of this week, [forwarding?] our report to the Accreditation Commission at that time. And of course we will be providing you with copies of the results of that survey when it is compiled and collated.
Thanks. [Peter takes his seat.]
FORTUNE: Trustee Williams?
Williams carps about Cox’s letter. “I don’t think,” he says, “that the Academic Senate is in the business of calling Board Forums….” He opines that the time is not yet right for a board forum. Maybe in January.
Trustee Milchiker disagrees; she requests the scheduling of a board forum as soon as possible. Trustee Padberg says that she supports a forum. Nevertheless, she insists that the district or the board has made “great strides” in increasing communication. Both campuses, she adds, are “still respected.”
Trustee Wagner says that he is “surprised” and “saddened” by Cox’s remarks. He complains that his meetings with the senate are now being used “against” him. Though he “seconds” Milchiker’s request to schedule a board forum, he insists that the board must follow “proper procedures.” Such procedures must be observed so no one sues the district or says, “there they go again.”
Next: DOT!
FORTUNE: I would just like to say that I’ve only been on the board three years, but I only remember one forum—which was supposedly to talk about reorganization [no, it wasn’t]—in 1997 in the summer. I know there was a meeting that the then-President of Saddleback College called to talk about the potential use of the baseball stadium or diamond for a pro team. That wasn’t a board forum.
We board members have been working—I would almost use the word “religiously”—for a year to go to division meetings, to speak to faculty. We’ve gone to Academic Senate meetings; we’ve met hours and hours and hours with Academic Senate officers; and you know it’s all true, with different members here, and so I think it is exceedingly unfair to present this kind of letter with very minimal subterfuge. It’s sort of blackmail. “The accreditation visit is coming in a week, and we don’t have a plan.”
Our plan has been ongoing for since last December to do all we could to have better communication with the people. For that to be turned on its head and for President Cox to attack our chancellor’s reading of what is a proper way to get people together—is just astounding to me.
COX: [calmly but insistently:] It’s not an attack…It’s not—
FORTUNE: Excuse me. You are out of order! [Fortune becomes louder as Cox tries to respond:] You, you, you are out of order! You, you are out of order! [She pounds her gavel as she bellows:] I will recess [boom] this [boom] meeting [boom]. Because you [boom] are [boom] out [boom] of OVER [sic]!
As Cox tries to respond [I can’t make out what she’s saying], Dot bellows:
FORTUNE: No, the process of deranging Accreditation is what you are interested in, and you are out of order!
COX: If my report—
FORTUNE: Would you, would you, would you—would you please [slam!]. Meeting is out—is going to RECESS, and if I have to, uh, we will take 5 minutes—and if you cannot contain yourself—
COX: [in an ordinary speaking voice:] I’m perfectly [contained]…
FORTUNE: [roaring:] If you cannot contain yourself, you will have to, you will have to leave the meeting. Right now we’re in recess for 5 minutes! [She gets up.] We’ve been talking with you folks, and… [The tape fades out.]
—A few minutes later, the meeting reconvenes. Soon, Sharon MacMillan, president of the faculty union, offers her report, engaging in the usual Old Guard ass-kissing.
She nearly sobs. The college still has a “good reputation,” she cries. Fighting tears, she thanks the board for supporting “our fine institution.”
