Monday, February 14, 2000

A student finds bad Fortune

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
        I was afraid. I did not know how to respond. My mouth probably hung open. The Professor with whom I was speaking, however, remained completely calm and composed. “Are you saying I’m going to die?” he inquired.
        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:

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...