Dissent 44
February 14, 2000
RUDENESS, NOT REASON
by g. valt [a student]
[graphic: mouse
person]
Monday night was very special for me, a milestone, for I attended my
very first Board Meeting. People had tried to talk me out of it. They warned of
negativity like I had never before encountered. But, you know how it is. I
headed for Saddleback College.
Frowning and scowling:
The meeting began with a discussion of Board Policy 8000—the proposed
“speech and advocacy” policy. Right away, a surprising piece of “negativity”
came flying my way. “There are those of us here,” said Trustee Fortune, “who
think that you can play heavy metal that would blow your windows out. And
that’s your free speech.” She seemed to
be describing what she took to be the student activist’s conception of free
speech. I wanted to stand up and tell Trustee Fortune that, hey, I’m a student
activist, and I prefer folk music. Who does she think she is?
These trustees do a lot of frowning and scowling. Trustee Williams
frowned very unpleasantly. Then Trustee Padberg directed a scowl at Trustee
Milchiker. There was eye-rolling, too.
I studied the room. I saw the student trustee’s picture hanging on the
wall. What a nice gesture, I thought. The student trustee must really be
valued.
I turned my attention back to the Trustees. This time my eye fell on a
flushed Trustee Frogue. He began to speak—something about the District having
to follow the Brown Act (the law in California that requires openness and
forbids secrecy among board members and the like). He spoke of lawsuits and
self-examination. Pretty deep. Then, out of nowhere, he got negative, spouting
ad hominems. He announced: “You know the OC Superior Court doesn’t follow the
Brown Act itself!”
I’m not sure, but I think he might
have stuck out his tongue, too. I wondered if the Superior Court had released
an official statement that said that it held meetings illegally. Highly
unlikely. Perhaps Trustee Frogue had an inside source? I waited for him to
announce a lawsuit against the OC Superior Court. That’s what he seemed to want
to do.
Trustee Fortune declared that BP
8000 was a “liberal” policy: “You can do anything, anywhere, anytime, unless
you’re breaking the law.” —Did she really mean to say that all actions were
lawful unless they were unlawful? That something was either “A” or “not A”?
Wow.
Bees:
Trustee Padberg had a bee in her
bonnet. When Milchiker attempted to speak, Padberg roared: “Put that in written form!” Milchiker struggled to continue. “WRITTEN!” said Padberg. But hadn’t
several oral commentaries already been given? Hadn’t Fortune spoken several
times, at length, in support of the policy? Apparently, certain
viewpoints—namely, those opposing BP 8000—would not be heard.
At least the student trustee’s photo was still hanging on the wall, a
clear sign, I thought, of her importance.
Wrong. Time came for a vote. Seven
trustees voiced their opinions, and Trustee Padberg moved to the next item. But
wait! What about the student trustee? With an apologetic giggle, Padberg caught
herself and asked for the “advisory” opinion. Clearly, to Padberg and her
friends, the student trustee’s view was not important at all.
Swordplay:
The Board meeting continued, and so did the negativity. But nothing I
witnessed during the meeting was quite so negative as what I encountered after
it was over.
At Coco’s Mission Viejo, I was speaking with a Professor about silly,
irrelevant things like logic (which clearly had no place in a Board meeting), when
a strange curmudgeon of a man walked by. Patrick J. Fennel—that was his
name—suddenly stopped and told the Professor: “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword!”
Fennel |
Reasonable question, I thought. The
curmudgeon denied that he was saying that. He sent a vague warning in the
direction of the Professor. Something very foreboding, as I recall. “Are you
threatening me?” the Professor calmly asked.
Perfectly valid question. One likes
to know where one stands with curmudgeons and their swords. Again, a clearly
negative remark was flung back at the Professor. He was being told that someone would get him, sometime, somehow.
As Fennel stalked away, I started to think: hadn’t the district been portraying
my professor as hostile and threatening? And hadn’t he in fact remained totally
composed and polite, despite being threatened? Hmmm….
I thought back to the negativity
that I had witnessed during the evening. My professor friend had not generated
any. He was not the one who mentioned death or violent weapons. But there was negativity at the meeting—the scowls,
the fallacies, the attacks. The Professor had had no part in that. In fact,
that stuff had all oozed from the Board.
Thus ended the night of my first
meeting. People had warned me. I offer this advice: if you go to SOCCCD board
meetings--or even to Coco’s MV afterward--expect rudeness, not reason. —GV
No comments:
Post a Comment