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