Shared governance under siege

Dissent 42

January 27, 2000

SHARED GOVERNANCE UNDER SIEGE

 By Chunk Wheeler [Roy Bauer] 

     Obviously, shared governance has been under siege in the SOCCCD for about three years; in recent months, matters have only grown worse. We at the Dissent would like to provide some context for this issue. Toward that end, we have provided three articles: (1) the entry entitled “shared governance” from The Dissenter’s Dictionary; (2) a 2-year old article on shared governance—as a national issue—by Courtney Leatherman of the Chronicle of Higher Education; and (3) a very recent article by the same writer and in the same journal concerning the phenomenon of increased reliance on part-timers, a related issue.

SHARED GOVERNANCE

    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.

     Generally, in public, the “Board Majority” has claimed to embrace shared governance—while claiming also that 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 this 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.

 * * *

From the Chronicle of Higher Education

January 30, 1998

‘Shared Governance’ Under Siege: Is It Time to Revive It or Get Rid of It? 

Professors feel shut out of decision making, and unsure about how to regain their influence

By COURTNEY LEATHERMAN

     If you want to draw a crowd to a faculty senate meeting, talk about pay, parking, or ousting the president. Anything else plays to an empty house.

            But lack of interest among faculty members is just one of the problems plaguing “shared governance” on campuses these days. The concept of professors’ playing a role in running their institutions is a cherished idea, but it’s under siege, threatened by overreaching trustees, ineffectual presidents, and professors themselves.

            Faculty members at many institutions feel they have been sidelined lately as others have decided big issues. They’re tired of the situation and are angling to be players once more. Professors are battling their governing boards over admissions policies in California, tenure codes in Minnesota, and conference topics in New York.

            Amid the turmoil, however, a lot of people are beginning to rethink the whole notion of shared governance.

            For faculty members, that means reviving it. “I find there is a consistent call from professors asking, ‘How do we get back into the game?’” says Joe Flynn, a distinguished-service professor at the State University of New York. As the co-founder of the National Network of Faculty Senates, which gives governance workshops around the country, Mr. Flynn says he senses “a new point of evolution” in the idea of governance.

            Professors on various campuses are calling in governance pros like Mr. Flynn to help them work with their administrations. Faculty governing bodies — typically called senates — are reviewing their governance documents in search of improvements. And national faculty groups are cranking up the rhetoric to rally interest in the sacred tenet.

            Trustees, on the other hand, want to revamp the whole notion of shared governance — and they’ve hired a consultant to do just that.

            “It’s almost gotten to the point that people don’t want to use the term ‘shared governance’ anymore, because it implies something that may not exist,” says John D. Walda, president of Indiana University’s Board of Trustees and a member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

            Shared governance is an idea developed by higher-education groups and disseminated by the American Association of University Professors in its 1966 “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.”

            The proposal lays out the roles that trustees, administrators, professors, and even students should play in their “shared responsibility and cooperative action” for running institutions. The statement says, for example, that professors should have primary authority over curriculum, research, and faculty status, and that their decisions should be overruled by the president or governing board “only in exceptional circumstance.”

            At the time, higher-education groups, including the governing- boards association, “recognized” and “commended” the statement as a step forward in delineating governance roles, but did not “endorse” it – a fact that the A.A.U.P. sometimes forgets, says Tom Ingram, president of the governing-boards group.

            He and many trustees want to make professors mindful that higher education has changed significantly in three decades: Institutions have become bigger and more complex and have come under increased pressure from outsiders like corporations and lawmakers. In the current environment, many trustees argue, there is a need for speed, and the traditional concept of shared governance has not kept up.

            “Faculty involvement in institutional governance is not going well at all,” Mr. Ingram says.

            He believes that most faculty senates are “dysfunctional.” He argues, as many others do, that they are notoriously slow to act, reluctant to make hard decisions, and eschewed by the top scholars on the faculty.

            Trustees bear a share of the blame, he concedes, pointing to “activist trustees” who have meddled in affairs that are clearly academic.

            Last year, the governing-boards association put out a report that called for strengthening the power of the presidency. Now the group wants to develop a new statement, specifying “what role the faculty should and should not presume to have” in running institutions, Mr. Ingram says.

            The group has hired a consultant — Robert H. Atwell, a past president of the American Council on Education — to develop a statement of principles for institutional decision making. It expects Mr. Atwell to act within the year. He plans to consult with scholars, trustees, and administrators, but says he’s not looking for a stamp of approval from any other organizations — including faculty groups.

            Moreover, the governing-boards association hopes to avoid even using the term “shared governance” in its statement.

            Faculty leaders, predictably, are bristling at the idea.

            “I’m trying to think of governance without the sharing,” says Mary Burgan, head of the A.A.U.P. “I guess that’s the monarchy.”

            She hopes to have her association put out its own booklet this year to give faculty members guidance on governing. (She recommends setting strict time limits on faculty meetings, for example.)

            She and others admit to weaknesses in faculty governance. But get rid of it, they warn, and you lose many of the values that separate academe from industry.

            And faculty members may do more than balk at being taken out of the decision-making loop, some say. They may walk — a picket line. The threat of unionization has become an increasingly popular weapon in the governance wars.

            Over all, Dr. Burgan believes that the 1966 statement still stands. The A.A.U.P. made that clear in 1991: It started a blacklist of institutions that violated the principles of shared governance. Last year, Francis Marion University became the third and latest addition (joining Lindenwood and Elmira Colleges), after its president was found to have made unilateral decisions on matters involving the curriculum and tenure procedures. The case, Dr. Burgan says, reveals an institution “that really wants the faculty to go away and have no opinions at all.” Francis Marion officials have since abolished its Faculty Senate.

            Elsewhere, however, some professors believe that faculty senates are simply dying on the vine.

            In the November/December issue of Academe, the A.A.U.P.’s magazine, Joanna Vecchiarelli Scott writes, “If the faculty-governance patient is dying, the wounds are partially self-inflicted. Death by inattention is probably the fairest verdict.”

            In an interview, Dr. Scott, a political scientist at Eastern Michigan University, elaborates: “I’m trying to say that faculty should take a more active role. Otherwise, governance is going to be defined for them.”

            Some people believe that the Faculty Senate at the University of Minnesota was caught off guard when the trustees there tried to overhaul the tenure system two years ago. These critics say it was the faculty’s threat to unionize, and not the strength of the senate, that forced the trustees to withdraw their plan.

            Faculty leaders at Minnesota take exception to that characterization, and they take credit for getting the trustees to pull back. “I think it was the shining hour of faculty governance,” says Virginia Gray, a political-science professor and head of the senate.

            Even so, faculty leaders appointed a Task Force on Faculty Consultation to reconsider the university’s governance structure. After talking to a variety of people on the campus, the task force concluded that all university decisions require some participation by the faculty.

            At the California State University System, professors complain that most of them learned of a plan to form a corporation with four big technology companies only as the deal was about to be finalized last month.

            “There seems to be a policy where the less we know, the better off we are,” says Benjamin P. Bowser, a sociology professor on C.S.U.’s Hayward campus. “So faculty are caught in the position where we have to react after the fact.”

            They reacted with protests, and administrators have postponed a decision on the technology plan until March.

            Dr. Bowser notes that it becomes especially difficult for professors to keep an eye on governance issues when their institutions hire more and more part-time professors. Adjuncts, typically, do not play a role in governing. That duty, then, falls to the minority of full-timers on a campus.

            In the power struggle at C.S.U., time and confidentiality were important factors: Officials there said that the plan was a good deal for the university, but that they had to keep it quiet until all of the companies were on board.

            Ken P. Mortimer, the president of the University of Hawaii System, who has written extensively on shared governance, argues that quick decisions can be made with the faculty’s blessing — if officials have laid the groundwork beforehand. “The basic argument against consulting is that you don’t have the time,” he says. “Our argument has been if you consult and advise routinely, in the few cases where you have to move quickly, a system of trust will have been built up to allow you to move.”

            Theodore J. Marchese, vice-president of the American Association for Higher Education, acknowledges “the built-in tension between what the market wants and the values that are prized by shared governance.”

            He suggests: “Let’s ask how the enactment of shared governance can be more responsive.”

            James J. Duderstadt has been considering ways to revise shared governance since stepping down as president of the University of Michigan last year. He worries that faculties will turn to unionizing more often if universities can’t make their governance procedures work more smoothly. He recommends “the corporate model” for governance.

            There’s nothing hierarchical about his plan, though. He recommends putting professors on governing boards. A seat at the table would give them authority along with accountability, he says; faculty representatives could hire and fire presidents, and, in turn, could be sued, just like other board members.

            Mr. Duderstadt, who is president emeritus and university professor of science and engineering at Michigan, suspects that trustees won’t like his idea. But, he argues, “the real governance does not occur in the senate, but in the governance body.”

            Devin Thornburg can attest to that. A past chairman of the Faculty Senate at Adelphi University, he notes that Adelphi’s senate structure was, in theory, a model of good governance. But it turned out to be a paper tiger. The administration and the Board of Trustees refused to deal with the senate. “We were dismissed,” he says.

            But Dr. Thornburg, an education professor, and others at Adelphi did attract the attention of the New York State Board of Regents, which replaced all but one of the university’s trustees last year for insufficient oversight of the compensation and lavish spending of the president, Peter Diamandopoulos.

            Now the institution is trying to reconfigure the idea of governance. Dr. Thornburg, for his part, recommends “shared governance at an earlier point. “We need to bring faculty and administrators together at an earlier stage of the problem, rather than the old model of the administration acting and the faculty reacting,” he says.

            Senates are important, he says, but he’s also in favor of creating “subordinate groupings,” like task forces reporting to presidents or trustees, to get even more professors involved in governance.

            Faculty members, he says, “need to share the authority, but also the accountability.”

            He’s got his share of accountability these days. Dr. Thornburg this month became associate provost. He is just one of three professors who led the charge to oust President Diamandopoulos and who have now moved into administrative posts at Adelphi. The union’s former leader on the campus now serves as dean of arts and sciences, and a former senate leader sits as provost.

            The irony is not lost on the current provost — or the former one.

            “It’s unusual that you have an institution that is completely run by the faculty,” says Igor Webb, the former provost, who was forced to step down last year but remains on the faculty. “Adelphi now is as close to that as you’re going to get.”

Teddi Lorch might accept an apology for sticking her head on a pterodactyl

January 26, 2000 

LA Times

Former trustee may sue college district

Teddi Lorch, who served until 1998, claims Irvine Valley teacher defamed her using school equipment.

By RENEE MOILANEN

     A former trustee says she may sue the South Orange County Community College District, charging that a faculty member used district equipment and facilities to produce defamatory newsletters that caused her emotional distress.
     Teddi Lorch, who served on the board from 1993 to 1998, claims Irvine Valley College professor Roy Bauer launched a “conscious, willful and malicious campaign to defame” her in newsletters distributed regularly at Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges.
     The district denied Lorch’s formal claim Monday night. Her lawyer, Chandler Bartlett, said that his client is now “considering her options” to file suit.
     In the claim, Lorch names three trustees and Chancellor Cedric Sampson as witnesses, but wouldn’t say whether the former colleagues had previously agreed to speak on her behalf.
     Lorch believes Bauer used district equipment to produce his anti-board newsletters, an allegation that he denies.
     “That’s utterly false,” Bauer said. “I have never used the equipment on campus. I do all that stuff at home.”
     Lorch is seeking damages exceeding $10,000. She said, however, that she may accept an apology from Bauer.
     In her claim, Lorch points to four newsletters beginning in February 1998 and ending last June. Of these, an April 1998 newsletter contained a cartoon titled “In the Lorch Wood,” depicting two characters resembling Tweedledee and Tweedledum with Lorch’s head superimposed on both.
     “Only reasonable minds can conclude that the demeaning and defaming content and duration of his newsletters ... were maliciously designed to intimidate, ridicule and degrade me and others in leadership positions who were not of his liking,” Lorch told board members in a statement Monday.
     She said she decided to file the claim after the June newsletter, which came out nearly six months after she gave up her seat on the board.

That's Teddi on the right, above Johnny

     “If one is serving on the board of directors, it’s a different capacity than if one is no longer on that board,” Bartlett said. “It may have been a factor in the filing of this claim.”
     Bauer admits that he often lampooned Lorch, even after she left the board.
    “I think she’s a public figure,” he said. “When I refer to people in newsletters, it’s in the context of something they’re doing relevant to the district.
     Last year, a federal judge ruled that Bauer’s newsletters were protected under the First Amendment.
     Lorch listed eight witnesses in her claim, among them trustees Dorothy Fortune, Steven Frogue and John Williams, with whom she was closely aligned during her board tenure.
     Trustee Nancy Padberg said she’s known Lorch’s family for “15-plus years” and would “have no problem being a witness if she needs me.”
     No trustee can remember any problems or rifts when Lorch left the board.
     “Something has to be said about values,” Lorch said, referring to Bauer’s newsletters. “Someone else has to take him to task.”

The Chancellor’s initiative to alter the “delegation of authority” agreement

Dissent 45

February 29, 2000

SAMPSON CONTRA FACULTY: January 24, 2000, Board Meeting 

[transcripts by Roy Bauer]

     Discussion of item 22: the Chancellor’s initiative to alter the “delegation of authority” agreement

     CHANCELLOR: Yes, this is an item that I have brought to the board’s attention—I have taken to the chancellor’s cabinet the issue of board policy 2100.1…. 

     The reason why I brought this forward is that I believe there’s confusion in the district about what shared governance means, what the law states, and what our board policy means. This was brought to my attention at the meeting at which the board requested a plan from the administration on a soccer program—a potential intercollegiate soccer program—and the response related to this policy, and the response was that the board did not have authority to make such a request. I believe that that is incorrect, but it does stem from this policy and it needs to be reviewed.

I had discussed this with the governance groups at the Chancellor’s Cabinet and have distributed [it?] to the system for review and would like to request that the board authorize me to enter into discussions with the academic units about a potential change in this policy. I would then bring back to the board the results of those conversations and discussions and be able to articulate to you the positions of the academic senate.

I think there are arguments on all sides of this issue, which I would like to explore with the senates and also perhaps with the state chancellor’s office. The issue really relates to the delegation of authority, and that begins with the legislature, which delegates to you responsibility for approving and managing and directing all of the educational programs of the district.

The issue is first of all, whether you can delegate that entire authority to another group, and, secondly, did this policy in fact do that? And we need to explore those.

     Trustee Wagner asks why discussions of the shared governance issue should be thought to necessitate a change of policy or discussion of that sort of action.

     CHANCELLOR: The problem was, when I tried to discuss this in the Chancellor’s Cabinet, it was as the Chancellor, and the board had not authorized me at the time to do it. And so the discussion was both not on point and I don’t think taken very seriously. The reason for my request, my bringing it to the board and requesting that you ask me to do this is, then, when I go out, I have authority that you have requested that I discuss with the senate these issues, and I believe I could get a better response.

     Trustee Padberg asks the two senate presidents to “comment.

     In her remarks, Anne Cox takes issue with the Chancellor’s characterization of the position of the Saddleback Academic Senate. The senate has never stated that the Board does not have the right of final approval of curriculum, programs, etc., says Anne. Further, the senate’s response to the soccer proposal was not a rejection of soccer.  Our primary objection, says Anne, was that there is a long-standing process in place concerning curriculum development, and curriculum is among the ten items specified in 2100.1 and in state law that delegate both responsibility and authority to the senates. (See pp. 7-8.) The board approves, but it is the faculty that is to be relied upon primarily.

     In his remarks, Peter Morrison states that the IVC Academic Senate has no objection to the request, understood only as a request to discuss the board policy with the object of overcoming differences.

 Trustee Frogue alludes to the view of some trustees that the “whole idea” of shared governance is dubious. He accuses someone—unnamed—of hypocricy. Suddenly, he attacks the academic senates. Senate elections, he says, have been “fraught with irregularities.” He says he wants open hearings concerning shared governance.

Wagner refers to the joint academic senate meetings that occurred earlier in January (see Dissent 41). He says he is having trouble finding the problem with the policy. The issues or problems, he says, do not seem “substantive.” He says he will support the chancellor’s request in view of the need for discussion and the apparent disagreements between the chancellor and the faculty.

Trustee Lang says he can’t support the request. The policy is already fairly clear. By pursuing this matter, we are, he says “destroying the fabric of collegiality.”

Trustee Fortune says she supports the recommendation. She says the policy is “fraught with ambiguity,” and refers to the many instances in which, she says, the senate has tried to tell the board what to do.

Trustee Williams supports the request.

Trustee Milchiker objects to the wording of the request, for it speaks of meetings between the chancellor and the senate “to change” the policy. We need to strike “to change,” she says, since, presumably, we are not proceeding with the idea that 2100.1 will necessarily be changed. She motions to amend the item, and this is 2nded by Lang. The motion to amend fails on a 5/2 vote, with student trustee Kalena supporting the amendment.

Milchiker describes the origin of the policy. She says she would support the request if the words “to change” were deleted. She suggests that one must rely on experts in areas in which one has little familiarity. The faculty are the experts regarding curriculum development, etc.

The Chancellor indicates his desire to respond to Milchiker and Lang:

CHANCELLOR: What I’d like to do is respond to that and to trustee Lang because of the apparent misperception that we intend not to rely primarily upon the advice of the academic senates. I presented to you the potential changes that I would like to see in this policy, and the policy is left that we rely primarily on the academic senates in those 10 areas. That would still be exactly what we would do. Our problem is with the delegation of authority, which goes beyond state law, which I would like to align with state law, and secondly that the “rely primarily” areas are wrapped in language that suggest that it’s a mutual agreement.

This is a very complex issue because the state gave authority to you to either rely primarily or reach mutual agreement. And what you did is you said we’ll “rely primarily,” but the whole thing is a mutual agreement—creates confusion about what shared governance really means because what we hear is, “Oh, you can’t change that ‘cuz you delegated that to us; unless we agree, you can’t change it.” But the policy says, “we will rely primarily.”

And so there is no intent to change the status of the academic senate with regard to their advising you and you relying on their advice. There is an attempt to change that little [searches for the right word] flip that creates the imagery that everything is a mutual agreement—not “rely primarily.”

(Fortune calls for the question. The vote is taken; the item passes.)         

We are happy teachers: the Chancellor's opening session & the union luncheon

Cedric

By Chunk Wheeler [Dissent 41 1/18/00]

McKinney theater (January 4, 2000):

My winter break was a complete bust, what with my getting a bad case of sciatica and whatnot. Somehow, I went to “staff development” activities down at Saddleback College expecting to have my spirits raised. What was I thinking?

Arriving at Saddleback’s McKinney theater at about 9:05, I grabbed some coffee and headed inside, where I sat pretty much in the middle. I espied Bob Kopfstein and Ray Chandos way off to my right. They whispering nastily. Just then, Pam Zanelli walked in, a haystack still on her head. Williams, Lang, and Milchiker were down toward the front, in the dignitary zone. Williams, looking staunch, was wedged in his seat like a square peg in a square hole.

At about 9:10, facing a meager crowd of about 60, Cedric began to purr through his nose the way he does, pointing out, unpleasantly, that it wasn’t yet a new millennium, not for another year. Gotta get beyond Y2K thinking, said he. Off to the right, someone broke wind, and there was laughter.

Sampson introduced the trustees, starting, naturally, with Williams. Then he thanked Maureen S for setting up the morning session, whereupon he explained the need for clarification of “roles and responsibilities.” Translation: “gotta put those goddam academic senates in their place.”

The guest speaker—Ray Geigle, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Cal State Bakersfield—seemed pretty cheerful for a guy who has to live in Bakersfield. He was a pretty good speaker, too, in stark contrast to Sampson.

For no apparent reason, Geigle told a funny story about a philosophy course he took as an undergraduate. In class, the professor asked Geigle whether he understood the lecture. Geigle said he did. Said the professor: “Well, good, Geigle; if you understood it, then everyone did.” We all laughed, but it was a bitter laugh, for we thought: “how come we’re stuck with stiffs like Cedric while friggin’ Bakersfield gets this guy?”

Geigle explained that 70% of the labor force is now in the service industry, and students need to understand that. Up in Bakersfield, lots of students want to go into agriculture, but that’s no good, ‘cuz, pretty soon, all of our crops will be grown by one guy on a computerized tractor, plowin’ computerized dirt.

Said Geigle: used to be that kids could go into manufacturing and make some good money, buy a house, a car. Now, manufacturing is pretty damned cheap and efficient, and these manufacturing jobs have vanished. Gotta have knowledge; that’s the new commodity.

John

That has enormous implications for us in higher education, said Geigle. But higher Ed is a huge bureaucracy, and it isn’t flexible. We’ve gotta learn to compete with the likes of the University of Phoenix. (!) Organizations like that could, he said, “drive us out of business.” We can no longer afford to teach courses just because we want to teach ‘em; gotta tailor courses to what students need right now. If we don’t provide the courses, someone else will, said Geigle.

He was starting to piss me off.

Geigle talked about the globalization of the economy, which, he said, is now unstoppable. The world wide web is having an incredible effect, like nothing that’s come before it. Nobody knows where this train is going, in part because it has no engineer. We can’t predict how things will be 3 years from now. So flexibility’s the thing.

Geigle seemed to say that the economy is becoming increasingly polarized between the unskilled, who are making five bucks an hour (or who make big bucks administering at IVC), and the highly skilled, who are wealthy bastards with maids and chauffeurs. He also noted that, pretty soon, we’ll all have molecular computers implanted in our bodies.

We’ve gotta tell our students more about the “texture of the job” they’re going into, said Geigle. A student might start out wanting to be, say, a traditional nurse, but he or she will end up shoving microcomputers up patients’ noses and then spinnin’ ‘em out the door.

Sensing the need to end with something positive, Geigle was suddenly bullish about California. Our state, he said, has all of the attributes necessary for global leadership. The largest open markets are in the Pacific Rim, and California has great ports. Also, we’ve got this diversity thing nailed. We’re screwing up, though, ‘cuz we’re not teaching languages. Gotta get on that. Everybody must get multilingual.

Geigle talked about our infrastructure, which has been badly neglected. Our generation has not done for its children, said G, what our parents did for theirs. Basically, said Geigle, we’re a bunch of assholes, and, looking over at Sampson and Williams, it was hard to disagree.

The Faculty Association Luncheon

After that, I hung out with Bill for a bit, and then I wandered over to the union luncheon, where we all stood in line. Suddenly, Lee popped up, holding a copy of Dissent 40, which offered an account of his Dec. 13 drumming performance. He shook the thing at me and said, “Why don’t you distribute these around here!” I said, “I did, Lee. That’s why you’ve got one. Nice to see you, Lee.” His tail twitched.

At long last, we got our food—there wasn’t much for vegetarians—and we sat down. I sat with Wendy, and others soon joined us. Cedric wandered over to greet people, but, though he stood only inches away from our table, he passed us by. I noticed Tony and Tom and Patrick over at one table, and Walter and Dale and Laurence at another. Larry and Moe and Curly were there, too.

Huddling at the table next to the podium were Pam “Same Sex” Zanelli, John “PE Boy” Williams, Ray “White Wash Willy” Chandos, Bob “Anger Management” Kopfstein, Sherry “PAC Woman” Miller-White, Sharon “Tiny Tears” MacMillan, and Cedric “Just Waitin’ for Retirement” Sampson.

Wow. An Axis meeting, right out in the open like that.

Just before things got started, we heard a strange sound from nearby. We looked down. It was Lee, who whispered, “I see you choose your friends carefully.” Then he ran off, [disappearing among the vertically unchallenged.]

Ray was seated in front of the podium, so, when things got started, they moved him to a card table against the wall, where he chewed alone, while the adults continued to conspire at the big table.

Sharon, wearing a brown suit with big gold buttons, introduced the featured speaker, who, as near as I can tell, was the caterer. He seemed like a nice fellow, though his address was uninspired. Later, he popped up to make a pitch for his restaurant.

Haggerty

Next, President-elect Lee Haggerty spoke. He talked about our chapter’s reputation for getting good contracts. Haggerty seemed to think that he was addressing only Saddleback faculty, a motif that recurred during most of the presentations. Upon noting, gratuitously, that he had recently been chosen as Teacher of the Year, Lee said something about the need for “healing,” though he failed to specify the ailment from which he was suffering. “Let’s recommit ourselves to students,” he said. It’s our commitment to “empowerment of students” that made Saddleback what it is today, he added.

After Maureen made an announcement concerning the “Great Teacher” seminar at Lake Arrowhead, Sharon introduced various dignitaries in the audience, including two trustees (Milchiker and Williams), the Chancellor, and President Bullock. Raghu P. Mathur was nowhere to be seen. Sharon, apparently about to break into tears, praised Williams for his support of the contract, especially with regard to the tiff over cost of living. Thanks to the outcome of the COLA wars, said she, “we’ll be happier teachers.”

Next, the loathsome John Williams spoke; he wore a blue suit, Hitler hair, and a ridiculous tie apparently fashioned from an American flag—a clear violation of what the SAR call “flag etiquette.” He said: “Yeah, I supported you. Now, you damn well better support me in 2000.” —Well, no, he didn’t actually say that. What he actually said was, “Why am I here?” Really.

Following Haggerty’s example, Williams spoke fondly of Saddleback College, which, he said, “changed my life.” He had intended to be a PE teacher and coach, but then he took some criminal law courses at the college, and the rest is history. (Yeah. In fact, he sat around eating doughnuts as a bailiff for 22 years. Naturally, after his doughnut period, he felt prepared to oversee a college district.)

He said that we’ve recovered from the bankruptcy and the “future is very bright.” After underscoring his role in the COLA wars, he said, “I appreciate your support” and “Please email me.”

Bob K got up to praise [himself] and his cronies for their successes negotiating the contract. Bob explained that good salaries in the district started with a board member, who used to say, “You can’t pay a good teacher enough; you can’t fire a bad teacher fast enough.” Everyone nodded; Lee W winced.

Sharon spoke about faculty evaluations, a bone of contention. The IVC Academic Senate has pursued a change in the evaluation procedures (for IVC) to bring them more in line with state guidelines, which favor inclusion of “peer evaluation.” Naturally, the Old Guard is against this. Sharon said that our existing “system” is very “liberal.” Hence, we “shouldn’t change it.” Ray C got up to make similar noises. He seemed to suggest that our peers can’t be trusted to evaluate us, but deans can. In fact, however, in December, an administrator at IVC was pressured by King Raghu to place an utterly undeserved negative remark in a faculty critic’s teaching evaluation. What about that, Ray?

The joint meeting of the academic senates

An hour or two later, we headed to BGS for a joint meeting of the academic senates, with Anne Cox and Peter Morrison presiding. The chancellor, of course, has recently expressed his intention to urge the modification of the board policy concerning delegation of authority to the academic senates. This effort by the chancellor (and, no doubt, the Board Majority) to reduce senate authority turned out to be the sole topic of the meeting.

Lee Walker was there. Amidst much groaning, he held up a recent Times article which described the “insulting” and “juvenile” anonymous newsletters that have cropped up at Saddleback College in response to the Dissent. He then held up a copy of Dissent 40, which, he said, has an article by “Chuck Wheeler”—implying, of course, that the Dissent, too, offers anonymous writings. At that point, I announced (politely) that “My name appears at the end of the article, Lee.” (Evidently, the poor fellow can’t read.)

Anne introduced some visitors, including Linda Collins of the State Academic Senate and trustees Nancy Padberg and Don Wagner. Wagner explained, rather ominously, that he will “report back to the board” what the senators have to say. He then added, contrary to all reason, that there is no effort afoot by anyone to change the scope of the exiting board policy regarding delegation of authority.

What’s that boy been smokin’?

Lee asked an incoherent question about the Brown Act, which produced a quizzical look on Ms. Collins’ face. “I’m not quite clear what the point is,” said she.

Peter laid out the essential facts regarding the “delegation of authority” caper. Basically, the board policy that defines delegation of authority to the senate (giving to the senate authority in 11 areas) explicitly precludes a unilateral change of the policy by the board. So, asked Peter, can the board act unilaterally? “Let’s hope that we don’t get there,” said Peter, for no one wants to pursue this matter in the courts. [Ultimately, the board did act unilaterally. —Ed.]

There was some disagreement concerning whether the change that the chancellor intends to recommend is “substantive.” After a while, partly owing to remarks by Ms. Collins, who seemed to be pretty sharp, it became abundantly clear that, contrary to the chancellor’s defenders—the Old Guard and Wagberg—the proposed change is indeed substantive.

At one point, I asked whether the board has in fact violated the existing policy—by failing to accept the senate’s recommendations (in the specified areas) or failing to provide written reasons for failing to accept them, as the policy requires. Eventually, it became clear that the board has indeed done so on several occasions. Such, at any rate, was the judgment of officers and senators of the Saddleback Academic Senate.

A defensive and clueless Nancy Padberg declared that there has been an “ongoing dialogue” for six months about these proposed changes, a point handily refuted by Anne Cox, who explained that no one had heard of the chancellor’s proposal until November or December. Anne and others rejected the notion, expressed by Sampson, that the senate does not understand its role. The problem is that the board does not accept the senate’s recommendations, contrary to board policy.

MacMillan

Someone (Anne?) offered the example of the Community Ed program that was in direct conflict with credit courses. In that matter, the Senate’s recommendation was simply ignored, and no written explanation was provided. “Professional leave” was also cited as an example.

Maureen S described how, during her tenure as senate president, the senate presidents were marginalized. First, they were moved from the meeting table; then their microphones were removed; and so on. Mickey M, who had also served as senate president, chimed in to explain that, when her hand went up at meetings, she was routinely ignored. There was a time, she said, when the faculty’s voice was valued; no longer. As things now stand, changes are just “given to us.”

A guy named Martin said we need to be entrepreneurial. Then Lee said something of about equal perspicacity.

Dale C chose that moment to announce: “I think the board is doing a great job,” whereupon Lee clapped loudly and alone.

And so it went. —CW