Brown Boy’s Investigative Adventures: going after the "$100,000 club"

Dissent 54

October 23, 2000

Vaguely Veridical Snideage

 by Chunk Wheeler

1. Brown Boy’s Investigative Adventures           

Back in the 20s, Louisiana politician Huey “Kingfish” Long beat the pants off of an opponent by accusing the guy of “living in open celibacy” with his sister…And remember the time that Nixon announced John Dean’s internal investigation into White House shenanigans? —That was the first time Dean had ever heard of it!…The successful liar lies Big while looking “troubled.”           

—The Compleat Rat Bastard

Johnny Investigates Big Salaries

Earlier this year, SOCCCD faculty began to receive curious emails that alleged various wacky emolumental abuses by dissenting IVC faculty, including something about a honeymoon financed by the district (way cool) and the use of college resources (stamps?) to benefit a trustee candidate. As far as I know, the charges have no merit whatsoever. They seem to be the usual water-cooler drivel, based on rumor and mental disease. (The district did, however, pay for my 1997 divorce. I wonder how the Dark Side missed that one?)

Anyway, as I recall, the name “Defranco” popped up in some of these early harangues, and, later, the name resurfaced. For instance, at the April Board meeting, we learned that concerned “senior citizen taxpayers”—actually, just Ms. Virginia Defranco, whoever she is—wrote to a receptive John Williams, urging him to investigate a particular IVC faculty member (and Williams critic) who, she alleged, was making about $130,000 per year, thanks to “perks” and Lord-knows-what-else. She noted, with obvious alarm, that this fellow “is not the only one who continues to make a salary in excess of his/her college president”!

(—That’s old news, lady. IVC’s current president—Raghu “Tech Prep” Mathur—during his faculty days, was among those rapacious niggards who made salaries well in excess of their college president’s six-figure pay. As I recall, Mr. Goo held the #2 spot in the district’s salary sweepstakes, makin’ nearly the $130K that got Defranco’s knickers in a knot. Nowadays, faculty sweepstakes winners are rakin’ in over $150K, while the college presidents are stuck down in the $110s! This has got Mr. Goo plenty peeved, boy. It just ain’t dignified, no sir.)

Williams’ new emphasis on faculty salaries was odd. That an instructor can make Big Bucks—largely owing to overload opportunities—is a function of the faculty contract, something that Williams—scandalously, especially in light of his close relationship with the union’s Old Guard—directly negotiated and that, as a trustee, he whole-heartedly recommended and approved. How can Williams take the position that these salaries are excessive when they’ve got his fingerprints all over ‘em?

That’s just a rhetorical question, dude. Obviously, Brown Boy was just sniffin’ around for a viable campaign issue, and, in the “issue” department, abject fraudulescence ain’t considered a drawback--not  among his nasty crowd of Neo-McCarthyist, Nixonian Republicans. Simplicity: that’s the thing. “Faculty make too much money.” —Even your average South County Neandertal can keep that one in his head.

In her letter, Ms. Defranco asked the Board to “conduct an investigation into all faculty members making in excess of $100,00 [sic] per year for the last four years.” So, at the April 24 Board meeting, Williams formally requested a “staff report,” to be presented in May, that would provide a “detailed list of faculty members who made $100,000 or more [and] who received release/re-assigned time from teaching duties and taught overload courses for additional pay.” “The report,” announced Bailiff Boy, “should include the years of 1990-99, base salary of the faculty member, and a complete breakdown of additional monies paid.”

Again, Williams, more than anyone, should have realized that “release/reassigned time” has little or nothing to do with the Faculty Big Bucks phenomenon, which has not flagged a bit during this post-reassigned time era. (On the contrary!) So I guess he was just grandstanding for the Booboisie out there in TV-Land.

Or maybe he’s just really stupid. Lots of people who know him often say that about John. I remember one of his allies on the Board tellin’ me once: “John ain’t exactly a rocket scientist, you know.”

Old Guard to Brown Boy: Stop!

Well, naturally, nothing seemed to come of the “Defranco investigation,” presumably because light cast upon faculty salaries would inevitably reveal Fundamental Fact #1 about John’s faculty pals, the Old Guard: they make the really big bucks.

You doubt this? Last May, I wrote the district to make a “Public Records Request,” asking for various financial documents. In June, I received a very confused packet that was supposed to respond to my request. Listed among its alleged contents was the following:

5. All documents which identify any employee of the SOCCCD, whether employed as a faculty member or under contract as an administration [sic], who received total compensation in the amount of $100,000 or more in any year from 1995 to the present.”

            In fact, however, the packet included no such documents. Instead, it included a list of 99 district employees (including a handful whose “CYTD gross pay” was a lousy $95-99K) for the “1999 Calendar Yr.” This list, evidently, was the result, or was one result, of the apparently abortive Defranco investigation.

The list’s contents explain why Williams’ investigation was left moldering in the shadows. It’s a veritable Whose Who (or What’s That) of his old union pals, including Tone Loogie, Mr. Droopy Drawers, ET “Ears” McUnion, Mickey No-Neck, “Beans” of Thespis, Orphan Boy, Tom Cat, et alia.

—And that IVC instructor that Ms. Defranco was carpin’ about? He’s listed as makin’ about $22,000 less than she said. Of course, the instructor had made this clear in a letter to the Times in early April—a response to Brownie’s accusatory March 21 Times letter that repeated Defranco’s hooey.

Repeated debunkage didn’t prevent Brown Boy from grandstanding three weeks later at the Board meeting. He never apologized for the false accusations; he just repeated them.

The Prodigal Bailiff Returns

Well, since spring, we’ve heard lots of rumors about Williams and his crew of morons fixin’ to go to the DA with Defranco’s goofy imputations—the “paid” honeymoon, the yarn about somebody using campus facilities to assist Lang’s campaign back in ’96, etc.

Well, I’m told that Brown Boy finally got his 15 minutes before the Grand Jury, and they laughed him right out of the courtroom. I bet he played his “bailiff” card and they threw it back at ‘im: “What is this? A joke?”

The problem: no evidence. It’s not enough, John, just to say this stuff. Get a goddam clue.

The Old Criminal Investigation Con

But in Williams’ Trickster-Dickster world, want of evidence is not a problem. Sources tell me that he has moved to plan B: enlisting the aid of “Dot” Fortune and Nancy “Poo Pants” Padberg, Williams has instigated a “criminal investigation” into Defranco’s charges—by campus cops Harry Parmer (at Saddleback) and Ted Romas (at IVC). The ever-obedient El Ced Sampson (who, by the way, is NOT the highest-paid employee in the district—faculty are) gave the order.

Naturally, Harry and Ted are lookin’ for a needle in a no-needle zone. Their “investigations” will produce zip. So, you may ask, “What’s the point?”

The point, dear reader, is that Williams and his allies can now don troubled looks and report to voters that there is a “criminal investigation” into faculty misconduct. And who (asks Brown Boy) benefited from some of the alleged misconduct? That would be Dave Lang.

Lang, of course, leads a slate of candidates running against Williams’ “Rat Bastard” slate. Need I say more?

A Reversal of Fortune

“No one in this world, so far as I know . . . has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” —H.L. Mencken

As you know, during the summer, just as Frogue was being replaced by Fuentes, Dot Fortune announced her decision not to run for reelection. She did that at a Board meeting. As I recall, a wave of joy broke across the room. Everyone beamed. Fuentes even twinkled.

Then, many weeks later, at the very last minute, Dot filed for the November race. Why the sudden switcheroo?

Here’s one theory: she snookered clueless retired educator Dave Colville into filing, thereby irreversibly splitting the non-incumbent vote in area 3 (Laguna Beach). Possibly, Colville would not have filed had he known he’d be going up against an incumbent. As things now stand, Colville must beat both Fortune and Shane, the “Clean Slate” candidate, and Colville ain’t got a dime.

Some speculate that Dot has no intention of remaining in office. According to one theory, she has agreed to run—as a favor to her Board Majority colleagues, who are banking on her incumbent’s advantage—and then to resign after her reelection. That would give the Board Majority another opportunity to appoint a BM-friendly colleague—one without Dot’s baggage, including her long-standing association with the Democratic Party. The latter, reportedly, is an unpardonable sin in the mind of Big Fish Fuentes.

3. Déjà vu all over again

A. The Airport. Have you seen Dot and Brown Boy’s TV spots on OCN? The bottom of the screen is emblazoned with this message: “Stop the El Toro Airport!”

Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha!

B. True Conservatives? Looks like the fogies in Leisure World recently received one of those homophobic and libelous “same-sex” fliers not unlike the one mailed by the union (Old Guard) back in ’96.

This latest flier reads in part:

Endorsement for:Saddleback College Board of Trustees (South O.C. Community College District) Don’t let your education tax dollars be Diverted from your Saddleback College EMERITUS INSTITUTE CLASSES to pay for SAME-SEX DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS. Vote for these true conservative America candidates who will keep your tax dollars in the classroom...These conservative American’s [i.e., Williams/Fortune/Fuentes/Davis] will NOT vote for same-sex domestic partner benefits…ULTRA LIBERALS [—right, three Republicans and an independent]...have promised the gay & lesbian organizations and the college union negotiators….

—And so on. The flier was mailed to individual homes in envelopes with no return address, though the flier itself had a P.O. box address. The flier’s distinctive use of capital letters suggests that it was authored by the same person or persons who distributed four similar fliers in recent weeks, including those claiming to be written by the non-existent “Lynn Hudson” and her “Gay-Lesbian Task Force.”

One of those fliers appeared to be the work of Saddleback’s Tony Garcia of the ersatz (or non-existent) “Conservative” Faculty Association.

4. The District Mailer 

For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa. The difference did not exist.

       —Charles Erwin Wilson

Have you seen the $50,000 district mailer, that proud monument to puffery, sophistry, incompetence, and illiteracy?

The mailer was supposedly sent as part of the district’s “image improvement” initiative. But, in view of its timing, one naturally suspects that its real purpose is political, for its celebratory message—arriving just before the election—is bound to benefit incumbent trustees now running for office, including Fuentes, Williams, and Fortune. (Well, that would be true if the thing weren’t embarrassingly inept.)

Trustee Lang (another incumbent) actually made that point during a Board meeting, urging a delay in mailing to erase any hint of politics. Padberg, I’m told, “countered” Lang’s point by arguing that he need not worry, for the darned thing will have little (political) impact, since it will get lost among all those political mailers! (Remember: this woman is the president of the Board.)

Padberg’s point, of course, is an excellent reason for holding off on the mailer until after the election. It is also a tacit admission that Lang had hit the nail on the head.

Perhaps I should describe this excrementitious mailer to you, page by page. Yes.

Page 1. The mailer’s title (“SOCCCD”) is in blue writing against a blue background; hence, it is barely visible. Its theme (I guess) appears in red: “Learning Opportunities on Your Horizon.” (Lame, stupid.) The page’s two colors—a murky blue atop a pastel green—clash hideously. Yecch!

The cover photograph (of twin tetons—Saddleback?) is utterly obscured by the messy and ill-matched graphics scattered on top of it. Photos of the colleges’ two full-time “outstanding faculty” (apparently, part-time “outstanding faculty” don’t count) are each ensconced in one of the blue teats. What does this mean? Dunno.

A strip of writing near the bottom announces: “Helping People and Businesses in Our Community Reach Their Goals.” The pro-business theme is continued elsewhere: “Employee Training Programs Designed for Business”; “Corporate Training.” (At times like these, I wonder if anyone in authority in this district has ever gone to a real college.)

Pages 2-3. But it gets worse. The two inner pages offer the same celebration of ugliness—plus a demonstration of illiteracy.

Consider: the “left” page presents a letter from Saddleback President Dixie Bullock, which says

“Our strong ties with the communities we serve is helping generations of residents fulfill their aspirations.” (Our…ties…is?)

“Students find a stimulating learning environment, challenged to fulfill their potential, encouraged to achieve their goals, and supported in their educational and personal endeavors.” (Just who or what is “challenged” and “encouraged”? Students? The “environment”? I don’t get it.)

It’s a good thing most South Countians don’t read; we’d be in big trouble.

The “right” page presents a letter from IVC’s Raghu P. Mathur, a fellow who can always be counted on to produce embarrassing illiteracies:

“Strong ties with business and industry to ensure that campus instruction is geared to today’s employment needs.” (Hey, dude, where’s the verb?)

“Students who want to change careers or enrich their personal knowledge, IVC’s non-credit corporate training and community education are a major resource.” (Um, something’s missing here, Goo.)

“Up to 20% of faculty, and numerous staff, hold doctorate or post-graduate degrees.” (This implies that 80% of IVC’s faculty don’t even have an M.S. or M.A., let alone a Doctorate. Wow, we really suck.)

“Our new state-of-the-art multimedia studio…offer increasingly more classes….” (Our studio offer?)

“Student government and student clubs offer involvement opportunities.” (Involvement opportunities? Yeah, those complement the various non-involvement opportunities, of which there are many.)

The mailer’s center, of course, presents a letter from Chancellor “El Ced” Sampson, which sports this howler:

“Completely interactive and private, students can now manage all of their customized information, access class schedules and review unofficial transcripts.” (Students are completely interactive and private? What does that mean? I don’t get it.)

Under El Ced’s letter, we find an old photograph of “groundbreaking ceremonies.” According to the caption, the district was “founded in 1967” and “dedicated in 1968.”

So which is it?

Page 4. Here, next to a silly photograph of El Ced and a Marine, we find a description of the “Advanced Technology and Education Park of South Orange County.” (Has anyone noticed that the “park” isn’t located in South Orange County? Does no one care?)

Alas, the writing is less than lucid:

“ATEP will provide multiple career study opportunities. Special certification through graduate study will be offered to launch new ventures through a business incubator.” (—Huh?)

“The ATEP will provide in residence and distance education train-the-trainer component for the foreign, non-physician health providers affiliated with this project.” (Um—What?)

The “shitty writing” motif continues in the blurbs devoted to “International Programs” and “Employee Training Programs.”

I do, however, appreciate the mailer’s innovative spelling of “laser”: Irvine Valley College, it seems, has a “Lazer/Electro-Optics Technology Program.”

Lets face it. Should any literate person actually read this mailer, she will be persuaded that ours is a district of morons. 

5. Tabula Raza? 

            Recently, we at IVC received an email from president Raghu P. Mathur, who seemed to encourage faculty and staff to read an online newsletter entitled Educators Working for Educators. Near as I can tell, he directed us in particular to an article in that publication that reads as follows:

These days, when you begin a conversation about teaching—“pedagogy”—you will almost inevitably arrive at the topic of the “path of discovery,” and the “processes of gaining knowledge,” ultimately replacing the age-old standard of knowledge transferring from the learned unto the “tabula raza” [sic] of the student, or the “less-learned.” All of this is well and good, but what does it really mean?

            OK, that does it. No further proof could possibly be required for the thesis that Raghu is an utter  and complete ignoramus. Good Lord!

6. Fuentes’ “Hardship”

            Recently, a friend sent word that the agenda for Monday’s Board meeting (on the 23rd) includes the following item (#22):

It is recommended that the board adopt resolution 00-42 authorizing payment to Trustee Fuentes who was absent from the September 25, 2000, Board of Trustee’ meeting.

            Evidently, the resolution cites Section 72425:

“A member (of the Board of Trustees) may be paid for any meeting when absent if the board...finds that at the time of the meeting he or she is performing service outside the meeting for the community college district, he or she was ill or on jury duty, or the absence was due to a hardship deemed acceptable by the Board. This compensation shall be a charge against the funds of the district.”

            Evidently, the resolution goes on as follows:

…Whereas it was determined that Trustee Fuentes’ absence was due to a hardship…Now, therefore, be it resolved that Trustee Fuentes shall be paid at the regular rate of compensation for the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees held on September 25, 2000.

            The “hardship”? On the 25th of September, Fuentes attended a Republican Party function.

What does it all mean?

Dunno.  —CW

Cirque du Socccd (OC Weekly)

 

From the OC Weekly, October 13, 2000

Cirque du Socccd
Goofiness is back at South Orange County Community College District

by Matt Coker

Let us revisit one of the weirdest marriages in the history of Orange County’s political freak show. It’s 1996, and the leadership of the liberal union representing South County community college faculty members has locked arms with four conservatives running for the board of trustees.

Their reasons are simple: the union, which spends more in these races than all other sources combined, will use its ample treasury to prop up conservatives in one of the most conservative voting areas in California, the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD), which encompasses Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges. In return, said conservatives will protect teacher salaries, already the highest in the state community college system, in the face of the financially strapped district’s looming bankruptcy.

The strategy of this unholy alliance was best illustrated in what became known as the “homophobic hate mailers of ’96.” To ensure the conservatives’ victory, the union paid for campaign mailers that played on the fears of conservative voters. The mailers claimed that the conservative slate would fight to protect voters’ hard-earned tax dollars from being used to fund health benefits for the same-sex partners of district employees.

Same-sex benefits were neither an issue in the race nor on the district bargaining table, but the tactic worked beautifully. Three of the four conservatives—Dorothy Fortune, John Williams and Steven Frogue—breezed to victory; fellow conservative Don Davis lost to incumbent David Lang.

The ’96 election left a bad taste in the mouths of many in the district. Acrimony led to lawsuits, turf wars, recall campaigns, outgoing staff stampedes, closed-door meetings, closed-door-meeting-law violations, threats of lost accreditation and an eventual changing of the guard in the faculty-union leadership.

But now it’s election time again, and gay-baiting has returned to the SOCCCD. Faxes that have been dropping like SCUDs at Irvine Valley College (IVC) the past few weeks riff off the same homophobia used in 1996. Claiming to be newsletters produced by IVC’s “Gay-Lesbian Task Force,” the faxes applaud a reform-minded slate of candidates—incumbent Lang and newcomers Bill Shane, Bob Loeffler and Bill Hochmuth—for supporting same-sex benefits.

Using political reverse psychology—and lots of capital letters—one fax reads: “Please, do not vote for those candidates who would DENY us our domestic-partner same-sex benefits (DON DAVIS, JOHN WILLIAMS, DOROTHY FORTUNE and TOM FUENTES).”

Fuentes, the chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, recently replaced Frogue, who stepped down from the board after a tumultuous reign that included two unsuccessful recall campaigns against him amid allegations that he is racist and anti-Semitic.

As is par for the SOCCCD, the faxes are total bullshit. There is no Gay-Lesbian Task Force. The name of the “registered Democrat” identified as the author of the abovementioned fax is not in the phone book, the district’s employee roster or the county registrar’s list of registered Democrats. The “author” listed on a second fax does exist but denies having created either fax and is offended by being linked to them.

A third fax sent out last week makes the same claims about same-sex benefits but directs all inquiries to IVC’s Gay & Lesbian Student Club—which does exist, although club members deny any involvement in this sordid mess. Fax No. 4 claims that Lang has won the endorsement of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Despite their over-the-top quality, the faxes prompted another IVC professor—who also exists—to announce the formation of a conservative faculty group to fight “liberal extremists” who have taken over the union and created a rogue and illegal PAC that has secretly recruited candidates to push for same-sex benefits. That professor confirmed to the Weekly that he authored that fax.

Andrew Tonkovich, a liberal adjunct faculty member at IVC and a constant thorn in the side of conservative trustees and administrators, responded to the fax campaign by putting out a satirical release from the “One True Conservative Faculty Association.” Noting that his organization “put the ‘con’ in ‘conservative,’” Tonkovich announced his group’s endorsement of Fuentes for not one but all four vacant district trustee seats this November. He concludes his delicious lampoon by pointing out that his public “remarks were met by complete indifference.”

“Complete indifference” is how we’re supposed to regard community college districts. When it comes to government fiefdoms, community college districts rank near the bottom in importance, sandwiched somewhere between vector-control and lighting-assessment districts. Here’s a little secret: community college boards don’t actually do anything. Most money for community colleges comes from the state and is earmarked for specific purposes. Talking about gays and lesbians is just a way to get some voters to pay attention.

The Weekly apologizes for having wasted this much ink to tell you that.

ASK MISS FORTUNE!

[From Dissent 53, 10/9/00]

Dear Miss Fortune: I recently left a high-ranking eleven-year administrative position in Belgrade to spend more time with my family. Little Marko is making new friends here in Moscow and, gosh, Mirjana is already plotting to overthrow the darn government.

I’ve spent a few thoughtful days lately, considering how the decisions I made affected Serbians and running from angry mobs and two guys who say they’re from something called a War Crimes Tribunal. I understand the IVC Foundation is seeking a Director and I hope that you’ll consider me for the position.

Signed:

Slobo M.

Dear Slobo: You’ll fit right in here. Some helpful hints toward securing this coveted position: Change your party affiliation. Enroll in classes at a prestige academic institution, say, Nova Southeastern University. Get yourself on the hiring committee. CC your CV to RM at IVC.

* * * * *

Dear Miss Fortune: I was staffing the Army recruitment table outside the Student Services building, talking to the UPS employment fellow and the nice lady from MasterCard, who was handing out free T-shirts to kids who signed up for a credit card.

We waved and threw brochures over to the Ye Olde Crafts Faire booth. There, a crew of tiny elves assembled handsome figurines of schnauzers dressed as clowns, these lovely statuettes made entirely out of Q-tips, yarn and rhinestones. Two nice young men from the Church of the Holy Townhouse Tabernacle came by, handing out Harvest Crusade literature. We were all havin’ such a great time.

Then, suddenly, a group of IVC faculty and students showed up with a card table and a flag. They said they were there to register voters. Well, I knew they were there to scare away all our business, crowd us out of our designated Free Speech area, and generally put a damper on our good time.

I’m trying to be all I can be, but these folks are treading all over my First Amendment rights. Right?

Signed:

G.I. Joe

Dear Joe: When you’re right, you’re right. I thought I saw you out there, in those short brown pants. Gosh, I love a man in uniform. Speaking of which, have you ever seen Lee W in his Fife and Dumb Corps costume? It makes Miss F want to march to the beat of his big, bad bass drum. Regarding your particular problem, I’d report all suspicious voter activity directly to the district. They seem to have all kinds of Board Policies, just the thought of which gets Miss F Hot.

* * * * *

Dear Miss Fortune: I’m the Chancellor of a community college district up for his contract renewal. If my bosses win the election, I’m guaranteed employment. If they lose, I’ll have to find a new college. Any ideas?

Signed:

Chance

Dear Chance: I’d try to do a mailing with a picture on it of Ronald Reagan riding a horse. Get the taxpayers to pay for it. Alternatively, you might hire the Blue Angels to fly overhead during the next trustees meeting, dropping brochures about free golf and homosexual teachers on the adoring crowds. Or they might crash, offering you an opportunity to foist blame on a small group of disgruntled pilots.

* * * * *

Dear Miss Fortune: It’s me again, the illegally-appointed president of a small community college, thinking positively, bringing people together and spreading the One True Light.

I was sitting in my comfy new chair just the other day, noting on the giant wall-sized graph on my office wall the history of ways my actions affected students. Raising my eyes from the floor, I saw a vision. There, on the wall, was Ronald Reagan’s horse. As if in a beautiful dream, I leaped up and mounted the handsome steed and rode off into the sunset.

Signed:

Visionary

Dear Airy: Reviewing carefully the “Unusual Occurrence” reports forwarded to me by Campus Security, I note one involving a small man seen pushing a leather chair around in the A-100 Building at two in the morning hollering “Giddyup, Evil Empire” and “Whoa, Distance Learning.”

I’m prepared to ignore this episode if you can get another high-level administrator’s secretary to sign off on my recent request to officially rename the Clocktower Quad the “Miss Fortune Urban Park.”

* * * * *

Dear Miss Fortune: I’m confused. What’s all this about “same sex” benefits? I gotta tell you I just don’t see it. My husband and I have been having the same sex for thirty years. You know the problem: It’s all over in less time than it takes the SOCCCD Trustees to violate the Brown Act. I’ve chilled champagne, lit scented candles, put on sexy lingerie, even left copies of Board Policy 8000 lying open on his side of the bed. Nothing seems to work. Help.

Signed:

Frustrated

Dear Fruss: Do what I do, honey. Send out some really filthy campaign literature. One thing that makes a fellow friskier than dirty pictures is dirty tricks. That and a handful of Dilantin. Well, no, actually, that makes you want to drop a bomb on Korea, but that kinda makes this sexy girl hot too.

* * * * *

Dear Miss Fortune: The Boy Scouts can’t take public money to discriminate. God-loving folk can’t pray at a public high school football game. And homosexuals, Jews, and Communists are taking over the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. I go to my weekly Rush Limbaugh meetings and ask my friends for advice. Everybody shakes their dittoheads and laments the passing of the good old days, when the head of the County GOP could run for a pissy little college district seat and win without having to spend $100,000.

When will things be the way they oughta be?

Signed:

In Limbo

Dear Limbo: I don’t know what you’re complaining about. After my recent conversion, I’ve had to meet a whole new group of people at GOP meetings. I used to be a Democrat, albeit a Reagan Democrat, so people keep coming up to me looking for the Mark of the Beast. (FYI: I had it removed with laser therapy.)

Sadly, my new board allies aren’t buying it. As a test of my true allegiance, they’ve agreed to let me stay on the slate if I officially change my name on the ballot. Although I’ve spent a great deal of time developing voter trust in the good Fortune name, I’ve agreed. Note to SOCCCD district voters: Don’t ask, just please, please mark the box that now reads Dorothy Harvest Crusade. God bless.

--MF

ANYTHING GOOs (Almost)

Dissent 53

October 9, 2000

ANYTHING GOOs (Almost)

by Chunk Wheeler

9/26/00:

     I check my voicemail at school and find a message from Lee Haggerty, faculty union Pres, who says he’s looking for a volunteer to serve as union rep on the IVC “Foundation Director” search committee. The “orientation meeting,” he says, will be held in the morning. I call him to explain that I can’t attend the meeting, owing to a conflict with my teaching gig.

     Later in the morning, a colleague calls, and I tell her about the search committee and Lee’s request. She says she received a similar request via voicemail or email. She adds: “We’d better get on this committee or else Mathur will screw with it.” Neither one of us, however, can attend the orientation meeting.

            You’ll recall that the Board Majority—led by Dot and the Froguester—have always hated the Foundations, complaining that “taxpayer money” is used to support them, and they have done everything in their power to weaken or destroy them. And, recently, Dot and the president of IVC were seen lunching together….

            —But never mind that.

“I shall make recommendations to myself” 

9/27/00:

            Late the next morning, I run into a colleague who is evidently on the Foundation Director search committee. According to the colleague, at the orientation meeting, held just that morning (with Lee H serving as union rep), IVC President Raghu Mathur announced that he would be chairing the search committee. Mathur also explained that he would be involved in the “second level” interviews, where, presumably, he would make the final hiring decision. Whoa!

            “So he will be on the committee that will make recommendations to himself?” I ask.

            “I guess so. He said he’d be involved at the second level. So either he is himself the sole 2nd level decision-maker, or he’s interviewing with someone else at that level.”

            “Good grief!”

Scam sandwich:

            Now, appointment of an administrator to a search committee is standard practice, but, typically, the administrator’s function is merely to convene the first meeting. At that time, the committee selects its own chair, someone in whom the members have confidence. Naturally, then, no group of faculty and classified at IVC—aside from 5 or 6 half-wits—would ever select Raghu P. Mathur as chair. Don’t forget: 74% of faculty voted “no confidence” in the fellow back in 1998; looking back, that must have been the peak of his popularity.

            Further, for obvious reasons, at decent institutions, leaving aside special circumstances, no one is allowed to serve at more than one level in a search/hiring process, for that would undermine the independence of the interviewing groups and, further, in the case of involvement by powerful administrators (who make the final decision), it would introduce the specter of intimidation of faculty and classified, skewing the process to administrative advantage. Duh!

            But, hey, we’re in the SOCCCD, home of the Rat Bastard and other moral rodents (pace rodents). Naturally, therefore, our district is also the state community college system’s locus of spectacularly egregious bouts of hiring schweinerei, such as the infamous presidential search of 1997, when members of the board, in-between paroxysms of similarly egregious Brown Act floutage and despite existing district policies to the contrary, interviewed all nineteen presidential applicants, declaring, in the end, that the disreputable law-breaker Raghu P. Mathur, who had not a day’s worth of permanent administrative experience, was the best of the lot! Jaws dropped state-wide.

            You’ll recall that the members of the presidential search committee—mostly faculty and classified—were forbidden to rank or eliminate candidates. Back then, upon learning this, we all stared at each other and asked: “What, then, is the function of the search committee?”

            Yup, the board interviewed all applicants, relegating faculty and classified input to the sphere of effete intellectualosity and nattering negative nabobery. Later, the board officially adopted that faculty-despising micromanagerial “hiring policy.” Here’s what the Accrediting Commission’s 2/99 “Evaluation Report” for IVC had to say about it:

            A significant portion of the IVC presidential selection controversy results from a revised board policy in executive hiring. This policy… allows the board to involve itself inappropriately in the selection process including the conducting of interviews three levels deep in the organization…This policy brings the board totally out of compliance with Standard 10.A.4….

            Eventually, owing to the Accrediting Commission’s tender prodding (i.e., placing both colleges on “warning” status), the “policy” was abandoned, but, thanks especially to the sychophantastic tag-team of Cedric Sampson and Raghu P. Mathur, hiring sleight-of-hand has persisted, and a stake remains hammered deeply into the heart of “collegial consultation” or delegation of authority (to appropriate academic experts).

The eternal return of the PTeddidactyl:

            For instance, who can forget the joyous time that was had by all when the Gooster somehow became chair of the hiring committee for the district “personnel” director. You see, former Board Majoritarian Teddi “Dolt” Lorch keenly coveted that post and, despite her cozy relationship with her former colleagues—who, of course, make the final hiring decision—she applied for the Director spot and then waited anxiously by the phone, wig at the ready. Mathur, of course, was the key to the scam, but something went awry—maybe resistance from a key administrator—and Lorch didn’t get the job. Naturally, with cheeks ajigglin’, she climbed a nearby mountaintop and unleashed her fury to the heavens, inspiring a deluge of plump toads; then she asked for an EEOC investigation. Plus she sued the district, charging “age discrimination.” (Meanwhile, she ran for the OC Republican Central Committee and came in dead last. Nobody wants her.)

            That brings us to Scam B. Lorch’s suit, like Mathur’s, will collect dust until after the elections. Some speculate that, then, Williams and Co. will announce: “Gee, the voters want us to end all this litigatin’ and get on with educatin’, so let’s settle these two suits an’ start the celebratin’!”

Inquiring minds wanna know:

            Later that day (the 27th), I email four of the trustees:

Dear Don, Nancy, Dave, and Marcia:

     I just learned that the search committee for the IVC Foundation Director position met this morning for an orientation. At that time, President Mathur announced that he would be on the committee as its chair. He also indicated that he will be involved in the “second level” interviews.

     I was wondering whether you share my feeling that it is inappropriate for President Mathur to be on (much less chair) the committee charged with recommending finalists to another committee of which he is also a member.

            Not long after, I receive an email from a friendly trustee. The trustee indicates that he or she will “ask Cedric [the Chancellor] or Gary [Poertner, a Vice Chancellor] about this right now” and thanks me for bringing the matter to the board’s attention.

9/28:

            The next day, I receive an email from yet another trustee: Nancy Padberg:

Roy,

            I have requested an explanation from our administration about your email.

            I will provide you with same when I receive it.

                                                            —Nancy

            Evidently, Padberg contacts Mathur, who responds immediately. In his response, he cites the current District Classified Leadership Employment Procedures, according to which the “immediate” supervisor of a vacant classified leadership position is entitled to recommend members to the search committee and usually serves as its chair. He adds that the Foundation Director reports to the President.

            Padberg forwards Mathur’s explanation to me with a note that says: “fyi  Please comment.”

Ever hear of “checks and balances”?

            So I write the same four trustees, including Nancy P:

            Mathur’s “explanation” is not responsive. He quotes the procedures as follows:

   “Recommendations for Search Committee membership normally will be made by the immediate supervisor of the vacant Classified Leadership position.  The immediate supervisor generally serves as the Chair of the Committee, as well.”

     This provision explains only who is entitled to make recommendations (for search committee membership); obviously, it does not also imply that THAT person is entitled to be on the committee. That is, the provision does not preclude the possibility that, by recommending himself for that committee, that person violates the purpose of having a two-committee process, namely, involvement of independent groups and checks and balances….

            —I was trying to say that the appropriateness of someone’s being recommended to a search committee is in part a matter of the recommendation’s compatibility with the notion of committee “independence” and the mechanism of “checks and balances.” Thus, though, prima facie, the employment procedures give to an employee’s supervisor the right to recommend search committee membership and even to serve as the committee’s chair, that right can nevertheless be trumped by other, weightier considerations, such as the importance of maintaining checks and balances and genuine constituency group input (including input from the community)—which, in this case, precludes allowing a powerful administrator to serve at multiple levels in the process. It certainly precludes the final decision-maker (i.e., the president of the college) sitting on the committee charged with winnowing decent candidates from the applicant pool!

            I next receive a message from my trustee friend who asks if I would mind their forwarding my email to Poertner. I write back that I would not.

            The trustee and Poertner then commence considerable telephone taggage. I don’t hear back from them for several days.

Scamball unravellage:

October 4:

            I receive an email from trustee Padberg:

Roy,

            I believe that Pres. Mathur has removed himself from the level of Chairing the committee for this Search.

                                                            —Nancy

            As usual, trustee Padberg doesn’t get it. I immediately write back as follows:

NANCY:

    That President Mathur accepted the chairship of the (Foundation Director) search committee was grossly inappropriate. But that he is on the committee at all is also grossly inappropriate, for that circumstance violates a goal or purpose of the multi-staged search process, namely, allowing independent entities to make important contributions to decision-making and providing “checks and balances” on the power of participating groups (CEOs,  faculty, et al.). By allowing himself to serve on the search committee, Mathur extends his influence beyond level 2 (the level of CEO influence) to level 1 (the level of faculty influence); he thereby weakens or eliminates the “check” on administrative/CEO power, for he has placed himself on the committee that is supposed to provide the “check” on his power!

    Please be aware that faculty and classified staff who serve on search committees are reluctant to defy the demands of administrators [that they encounter there], for they fear retaliation.

   I hope that you are aware that the violation of checks and balances and the negation of constituency group “input”—a factor in our recent “Accreditation” difficulties—have become routine in our district. For instance, during a recent search process for an IVC dean, an administrator at level 1—acting, no doubt, at the behest of President Mathur—demanded of faculty that all five candidates be put forward to level 2—despite the unanimous judgment (of faculty on that committee) that candidate #5 should not be forwarded, owing to his manifest and dismal inferiority. (Ultimately, #5 was hired, to the horror of “his” faculty.)

    Naturally, these events and circumstances will be duly reported to the Accrediting Team during the next round of Accreditation.

            I send the above email to the usual four trustees plus Mr. Fuentes.

            The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are a reference to a recent search process in which Mr. Glenn “Toady” Roquemore bullied committee members into advancing a particular applicant—one who had had an opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to obey corrupt Mathurian orders but who had received very negative evaluations from the members of the committee, owing, in part, to an obvious lack of qualifications, such as area expertise.

            Naturally, Roquemore had his way.

Goo Gone:

October 7:

            I finally hear back from my trustee friend, who has finally heard back (on the 2nd) from Poertner. The Vice Chancellor evidently wrote, “Raghu was going to be on the committee, but no longer is.” It seems that Mathur, confronted by Poertner with the “pros and cons” of remaining on the committee, agreed to remove himself. Well, duh!

            So much for plan A.

            I wonder what plan B will be like? There’s always a plan B. Can’t wait for plan B.  –CW