PATRIOTIC CORRECTNESS vs. THINKING

“It has come to my attention that several faculty members have been discussing the [Iraq] war within the context of their classrooms. We need to be sure that faculty do not explore this activity … unless it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of this office, that such discussions are directly related to the approved instructional requirements and materials associated with those classes.”

—IVC’s Vice President of Instruction, 3/27/03

ttention fans of free speech and academic freedom! You really should check out the Fall 2005 edition of the NEA’s higher education journal, “Thought & Action.” (Thought & Action)

It focuses on “Higher Education and the National Security State,” and it includes an interview of Noam Chomsky.

You’ll recall that, back in 2003, IVC’s VPI, Dennis White, banned talk of the Iraq war in the classroom. Evidently, some IVC instructors dared to question the war--imagine that!--which upset some students. So Dennis took action. It wasn’t that he was trying to sanction unquestioning patriotism. It was more that he was trying to keep our customers satisfied. Bleccch.

Normally, anybody would see the folly of this kind of censorship. In this case, however, Dennis seemed to be on the side of, as Trustee Tom likes to say, “our fighting men and women,” and that’s good, isn’t it? To do otherwise is bad, right?

So, without qualms, Dennis issued his ban. No doubt, he also issued a sigh of satisfaction.

His satisfaction didn’t last long. The ban produced yet another in a long series of embarrassing and wacky media storms, though most of the criticism in this case seemed to come from academics.

To make a long story short, the administration’s bumbling and contradictory efforts at damage control eventually produced an equivocal recanting of the ban, whereupon some members of the IVC Academic Senate asked for clarification of the administration’s policy on war talk. Senators were then warned to leave the matter as it was, which they did. (The tale is told in our Archives, War Talk Ban at IVC.)

The larger issue—of threats to academic freedom and free speech arising from fear—is very real and very disturbing, as you know. I recommend that you peruse the Fall 2005 edition of “Thought & Action.”

Read especially the article by John K. Wilson. It is entitled “Academic Freedom in America after 9/11.” (Academic Freedom. Warning: it's a pdf file.)

In the article, Wilson writes:

College Campuses around the country reacted to the September 11, 2001, terrorist acts with rallies, vigils, discussions, and a wide range of debates about the causes and cures for terrorism. Yet the story told about academia in the media was often quite different.

According to Wilson, the news media portrayed academia as a place that suppressed, in particular, support of our nation’s endeavor to respond to the terrorist threat. But is the portrayal accurate? Wilson writes:

There is no factual basis for the claim that supporters of war faced more suppression [than critics faced] on college campuses. To the contrary, opponents of the war on terror reported many more threats to academic freedom.

Back in 2003, when Dennis issued his ban, many of us at IVC were very aware that college classrooms are among the very few places in our society that permit and even embrace a genuinely open and free discussion of our government’s military adventures and anti-terrorist policies. Wilson notes:

Far from being the center of repression, college campuses were often the only places in America where the U.S. response to terrorism was seriously analyzed and debated. Indeed, conservatives attacked academia because, at a time of flag-waving and national unity, colleges were the one place in America[n] society where a debate about public policy occurred and dissent from the Bush Administration’s foreign policy was permitted.

Think of it in this way: if our nation were a group of, say, ten people, then Mr. Academy would be the guy (or gal) in the corner who thinks before he acts. That’s an important guy to have around.

Or, more accurately: the other nine people should be, but aren’t, like that guy.

Isn’t it clear by now that the problem with our invasion of Iraq was that too few of us were like that guy? Inside the academy, there was plenty of thought and open discussion and skeptical questioning. It was flyin' all over the place.

But it didn’t seem to matter very much, since, outside of academia, almost nobody really asked whether this thing made sense.

It sure didn't happen in the White House. It didn’t happen in Congress. It didn’t happen in the news media. Again, if our nation were that group of ten people, then Congress, the President, and the media are the three dolts in the middle--the one's with their heads up their asses.

Does Unflag-wavery exist as a kind of political correctness in academia? Sure. But if you’re looking for where the rubber meets the road, oppression-wise, then you need to consider the plight of Unflag-wavers, not Flag-wavers.

Or so says Wilson:

[M]y extensive survey of academic freedom and civil liberties at American universities found…[that] left-wing critics of the Bush Administration suffered by far the most numerous and most serious violations of their civil liberties. Censorship of conservatives was rare, and almost always overturned in the few cases where it occurred. Patriotic correctness—not political correctness—reigned supreme after 9/11.

I won’t review Wilson’s impressive litany of incidents, which includes Dennis’ ban (see page 127). And I sure don’t want to pick on Dennis, who is a nice guy and who, otherwise, really tries to do the right thing.

Unlike some persons I know.

But I do want to say that criticism and discussion are very valuable things, and, at real colleges, they occur without apology.

Happy New Year.

P.S.:

Here's an old memo from the President of Irvine Valley College to "all faculty":

I understand that some students have asked instructors to allow them to speak in their classes about campus political matters. In light of professional sense and matter [sic] of good practice, I would like to caution and advise all faculty to maintain the integrity of the classroom instruction [sic] by adhering to approved curriculum and course outlines of record for their day-to-day activities. It is not a good practice for faculty to allow campus politics to interfere with the educational interests of the students in the classroom. Discussion of political matters, for example, in political science classes is certainly appropriate. Students are welcome to use other forums and avenues to exercise their freedom of speech without interfering with educational interests of other students.

I appreciate very much your professional consideration of this matter. Thank you.

The date?:

April 2, 1998.

The author?:

RAGHU P. MATHUR


P.P.S.:

From Bob Park's newsletter (What's New?), yesterday:

DESIGNED LIES: THE DOVER SCHOOL BOARD DID IT "TIME AND AGAIN."

"It is ironic that these individuals, who so proudly touted their religious convictions in public would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." --From the Jones opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover school Board.

--I'm not sure how ironic it is. I'd say it's predictable. --CW

Just what I wanted!

1. THE ANTI-INTELLECTUALISTS LOSE A BIG ONE. Yes! Like many of the rest of you, I peeked under the X-mas tree (not the "Holiday" tree, the "X-mas" tree) and found that I got exactly what I wanted! --NAMELY: Judge Jones' marvelous decision in the Dover school board case.

Bob Park, a U of Maryland physicist, has a wonderful Science/Politics weekly newsletter called "What's New?" (You can subscribe to it for free.)

It comes out on Fridays. In today's edition he reports

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: DOVER DECISION DESTINED TO BE BESTSELLER.
"Our conclusion today," wrote United States District Judge John E. Jones III, "is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom." You must read 137 pages to get to that line, but it's time well spent. Jones, a conservative Republican appointed by George W. Bush, reviews the "legal landscape" of church-state separation, and then addresses the key question of whether ID is science or religion. He does so, "in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of resources on subsequent trials." Science, he observes, "rejects appeal to authority in favor of empirical evidence," whereas, "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." Not only does he enjoin Dover schools from teaching ID, he says the parents who brought suit are entitled to damages. That may cool the ardor of other school boards thinking of hopping in bed with the Discovery Institute. In the Senate, Rick Santorum (R-PA), who had earlier praised the Dover School Board for "teaching the controversy," was so moved by the Jones decision that he severed his ties to the Thomas Moore Law Center, which had defended the Board. (My emphasis throughout.)

Bob goes on to say:

Having just read Judge Jones "passionate paean to science," I turned on "Heaven: Where Is It? How Do We Get There," a two-hour special on ABC. The only hard information was that 90 percent of the public believes in it, whatever it is. That's scary, but how could ABC spend two hours on something for which there is no evidence whatever? Easy, have Barbara Walters interview experts, from mega-church evangelist Ted Haggard, who explains Heaven is only for born-again Christians, to a failed suicide bomber in a Jerusalem prison who was certain it's only for Muslims.

Do yourself a favor and subscribe to Park's newsletter! He's often funny and always tough-minded.
What's New?

2. ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIER: TOM FUENTES' FAREWELL SPEECH ('04). You might be interested in reading Tom Fuentes' "farewell" speech of March 14, 2004--when he stepped down after twenty years as chairman of the local GOP. To read the whole speech, go to SoCal Law Blog:
Farewell to Fuentes

Here are some brief excerpts:

Now, some have asked me what is it that gives me most joy in twenty years as Chairman of this County Party. It is a little thing. It is the fact that anywhere in this county, whenever Republicans gather, we begin our time together with prayer. You may pray in your way, and I may pray in mine, but, my friends, Republicans in this county always acknowledge a power higher than ourselves as did our Founding Fathers. And, the values, principles, and ideals that flow from the acknowledgement of the divinity, guides our conservative social agenda. It gives us pause to reflect on what is really important in life and society. It motivates us to defend causes that are so critical in the cultural war that today engulfs our nation and its society. Because you have allowed me to serve as your Chairman, I have been able to enjoy the opportunity to give encouragement to countless young activists to become involved in the leadership of our party.
.....
No matter how strong the winds blow from the left in places like San Francisco and Hollywood, you my friends, are committed to a higher and nobler calling. I want to thank President Bush for his kind appointment of me to his Administration. I greatly enjoy my current service in Washington, D.C. and around the nation, on the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation. With an annual budget of some $350 Million, our task is to provide equal access to justice in America.
.....
In 1984, when I first spoke as the newly elected Chairman of our County Party, it was 150 years after my great, great, great grandfather arrived in Orange County in 1834. He walk[ed] north from Old Mission San Juan Capistrano through this land that you and I call home. Today, now in 2004, it is 170 years since his arrival and his walking. My colleagues, I want you to know that I will continue to walk with you, to visit our neighbors, and to welcome them into our party. Thank you very much.

“Good people” vs. Bad people

As you know, Trustee Tom Fuentes, along with notorious Christian Reconstructionist Howard F. Ahmanson (see ARCHIVES: 11/30/05)—is on the Board of Directors of the “Claremont Institute," an eccentric neoconservative think tank. (See Wiki on CLAREMONT INST.)

Today, at the CI website, I ran across an April 2005 interview of Fuentes by CI's Ken Masugi. For those of you who are interested in Mr. Fuentes’ politics—especially his views on teachers at public institutions—the interview is worth reading. Otherwise, I’d skip it.

I have provided brief excerpts below. To read the entire interview, go to

http://www.claremont.org/projects/
local_gov/Newsletter/fuentesinterview.html

Or click on:

INTERVIEW

THE MASUGI INTERVIEW (Excerpts):

Tom, …What is the California Dream? Is it in danger, or simply changing?
…..
My great-great-great grandfather arrived in San Diego aboard a ship from Mexico in 1834. He was born aboard another ship that came from Spain in 1810. Both he, and his parents before him, suffered hardships and trials so that he could reach this magnificent place we call California….

Today, I see ever growing government and more restrictions on our freedoms as Californians. Our state capital is infested with special interests and the average Californian has to pick up the tab to support the government and special interest elites…We need less government in California, not more….

California was the place from which came Proposition 13 and Ronald Reagan. This state gave to the nation a conservative agenda of reform. I hope that vision is not lost.

How does the November [2004] Republican victory nationwide reflect on the American/California Dream?

I liked the county-by-county, red versus blue map of the nation that was published after the election. It showed that most of California is red. That is to say, most of the communities of our state voted for President Bush. The Kerry victory in California came from the blue urban core areas.

I believe that the map demonstrates that the good and morally motivated people in most of California's towns and communities share common values with the vast majority of their countrymen.
…..
Is California out of step on moral issues that many cite as giving Bush the edge over Kerry and the Democrats in the last election?

I think that most Californians are good people who share noble ideals.

On the other hand, California is home to Hollywood and its violence and vulgarity…..

Are there…things you liked about [Governor Schwarzenegger’s recent] speech?

I am impressed by the Governor's candor in identifying the government worker labor unions, especially the teachers, as key elements of the problem [of over-spending]. The entitlements of money and benefits, especially retirement, will eventually bankrupt California if not soon checked.
…..
Your career has been marked by devotion to following principle and at the same time expanding the base of the party. What advice can you give to young politicians and those who are cynical about politics and how to match principle and electability?
…..
The Republican Party must outreach with a conservative message. Nationwide, the campaign found success in reaching Hispanics and Catholics, for example. In 2004, Catholic support for Bush was up to 52%--six points higher than in 2000….

But reaching these constituencies in California will be a real challenge. The state party today is in the hands of moderates, not conservatives. Many from big business, and moneyed moderates, do not want to encourage a more conservative party.
…..
On what local government issues should Republicans consider uniting? How should conservatives link local issues to state and national ones?

I have the privilege of serving as a trustee of a large community college district. As a local elected official, I am always amazed at how often local elected officials, who are registered Republicans, forget conservative ideals in their local decision-making. I know many a local elected official who has never met a new government program he or she did not like. We must teach what it is to be a conservative to those who serve in city, county and school posts.

As an example, the labor unions are as aggressive in the cities and school districts, as they are in Sacramento. I see self-identified Republican city council members and school trustees voting for outlandish salaries, retirement benefits and entitlement programs for public employees with little regard for the taxpayer. I see property rights challenged by these same people.


Tell us about your work for the Claremont Institute in its new Orange County Office.

I am delighted to be serving the Institute at its new offices in Newport Beach. Orange County has always had a warm spot in its heart for The Claremont Institute. The Institute has so many able and articulate scholars. I want to help get out their message to the people of Southern California and to recruit neighbors to support the work of the Institute in sharing the message of the American Founding in our contemporary political life. We have begun to have some fine showcase events to get more exposure for the work of the Institute. It's an exciting time. [END]

NOTES

1. I added the italics. --CW

2. Thomas L. Phillips of Phillips International is on Claremont Institute's board of “advisors.” See ARCHIVES: 9/23/02.

3. In the interview, Fuentes argues for the need to engage in state redistricting to make political races more competitive. Evidently, the Rose Institute of Claremont McKenna has produced studies that support such a reform. Eric Norby--who was appointed by the Board to replace Dorothy Fortune but who quickly resigned--works for the Rose Institute.

4. Here's a fun fact: one of Claremont Institute's projects is:

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership -- "a group of health professionals familiar with guns and medical research, is the antidote to those who twist science to serve a misguided anti-gun ideology."

Don't believe it? Click on the link below:

CI PROJECTS

Cronyism & Mirthulence

As you know, at the last board meeting (Dec. 12), Trustee Tom Fuentes, former Big Cheese of the OC Republican Party, expressed a concern that the faculty hiring process up for approval that night might permit faculty “cronyism.”

Ha! I say "HA!"

That Trustee Tom is pointing the fickle finger of Fuentes at faculty “cronyism” is Ha!-worthy in two big respects—beyond, that is, there being no evidence that cronyism taints our faculty hires these days. (Let me know if I’m wrong about that.)

REASON FOR MIRTH #1: First of all, it is yet another instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

Remember when Supervisor Chris Norby's brother Eric (who works at Claremont McKenna College, which has close ties to the Claremont Institute, on whose Board sits TOM FUENTES [Correction: there may be no connection between CMC and CI]) popped up as the Board’s choice to replace Trustee Dorothy Fortune? Fuentes and his Republican cronies tried to pull a fast one, appointing Norby and setting him up for an easy win in the next election. But our faculty union out-maneuvered the Fuensters and forced a special election, scaring Norby off (hence, Bill Jay).

In an article that appeared in March of 2004 concerning an "envelope" irregularity in that election, the OC Register explained that

The envelope flap [who says Marla Jo isn't funny?] is the latest wrinkle in controversy over who will be the new trustee for the district, which operates Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges. The election is to replace former Trustee Dorothy Fortune, who moved.

Trustees appointed Eric Norby, chief of staff to his brother, Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby, to fill the position, but faculty and students complained that the process smacked of cronyism. [Yes, CRONYISM.]

They gathered signatures on petitions to trigger a special election--a move that caused Eric Norby to resign, saying he didn't want the stress of running for office. (OC Register, 5/27/04)

If you're in Tom Fuentes' circle, you have a way of poppin' up now and again in the world of power and politics that I call the Fuentesphere. And, without cronyism, there is no Fuentesphere, and there is no Fuentean Big Cheesery.

Just look in any corner of our benighted district that involves power or money—say, the IVC Foundation (money). Go to its website-- IVC Foundation --where the organization’s Board of Governors is listed. Oddly, many members of the board have close ties to the local and state Republican Party machine.

Why do you suppose that is?

For instance, “Governor” Anthony Kuo, a former IVC student and Mathur apologist, has for years been closely tied to the County GOP. These days, he’s an alternate on its central committee and a leader in the “Young Republicans.”

“Governor” John S. Fleischman served as the Executive Director of the state GOP. Presently, he is the Deputy Director for Public Affairs for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department--that would be Fuentes crony Mike Carona's Sheriff's Department.

“Governor” Adam Probolsky is a long-time Fuentes associate—indeed, he was on hand to orchestrate Fuentes’ “coronation” as Trustee Frogue’s replacement in 2000. (It appeared that he wrote the spontaneous answers that Fuentes gave to the board's questions that night.)

Naturally, Fuentes was hand-picked by some of his Republican cronies on our board. (Prior to Frogue’s resignation, certainly Williams and Mathur, and possibly Wagner, had close ties to Fuentes.)

Former Foundation director William Christiansen served for eight years as the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Orange County.

Then there’s current Foundation Director Al Tello (admittedly, a very nice guy) and Fuentes’ wife Jolene, and—well, you get the picture.

In the Fuentesphere, crony-impacted organizations create prizes for extra-organizational cronies. IVC's Foundation is no exception. Hence, this sort of thing occurs:

IVC press release (4/4/03): Sheriff Mike Carona to be Honored at Irvine Valley College Foundation Awards Dinner...The Board of Governors of the Irvine Valley College Foundation announced today that Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona will be the guest of honor at the annual IVC Foundation Awards Dinner, to be held at the Irvine Marriott Hotel on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. The theme of this year’s dinner will be “Securing the Future.”

“We are proud to announce that Sheriff Carona will receive our Hometown Hero Award and will be acknowledged for his contribution to the community,” said Board Chairman Duane Cave.

Natch, sleaze-ball Carona is a Fuentes crony. (According to the OC Weekly (10/6/05), these days, Carona is "struggling through embarrassing revelations about his incompetence, connections to felons, fund-raising irregularities and a sordid mess involving an alleged series of extramarital affairs....")

REASON FOR MIRTH #2. Our Board—or at least it’s various incarnations of the conservative “Board Majority”—has often been accused of cronyism. For instance, who can forget Matt Coker’s colorful description of our board?:

Anyone who has attended meetings of local boards…is used to the superfluous public ass-kissing elected officials give one another. Taking such manufactured passion to new depths is the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees, which governs Saddleback and Irvine Valley colleges. At a recent meeting, board president Don Wagner paused at one point to congratulate trustee Tom Fuentes for being re-elected to a 10th term as Orange County Republican Party chairman. Fuentes had earlier toasted fellow trustee John Williams for being sworn in as Orange County’s new public administrator—the part-time elected official who oversees conservancies for feeble-minded folks who can’t care for themselves and have no next-of-kin. But what Fuentes did next says a lot about Orange County Republicans, county government and that particular school board: he congratulated fellow trustee Nancy Padberg for being appointed to Williams’ professional staff. The same board awarded a plum district administrative job to the trustee Padberg replaced [namely, Teddi Lorch]—even though her qualifications were questionable. The funny thing...is Williams was first swept into his trustee seat as a reformer who would protect South County taxpayers by ending rampant cronyism on the part of faculty and administrators. Dissident trustee David Lang has long complained of cronyism practiced by Fuentes, Williams, Padberg, Wagner and Dorothy Fortune—Republicans who cast identical votes so often you’d think they trained at the old Soviet Politburo. We would have asked Padberg if she foresees any conflicts, but she was too busy nominating her new boss Williams to a seat on the California Community College Trustees board of directors. (OC Weekly, 3/14/03)

What, one might ask, does Coker mean by referring to David Lang as a “dissident”? Well, before the Langster joined the Fuentes-dominated Board Majority, he could be counted on to point out Board Majority wrongdoing, including BM cronyism.

Back in June of 2000, the Irvine World News ran an article entitled: “David Lang…alleges cronyism in college district.” According to the article,

David Lang...told his colleagues Monday he objects to the continued recruitment of friends and political allies for jobs in the district…The trustee said he was appalled at the lack of ethics he contends is damaging the reputation of the district. “One can only hope we can avoid being dubbed the Tammany Hall community college district,” Lang said.

In the same article, Board Majoritarians such as Don Wagner seemed disinclined to accept the “cronyism” charge, demanding that Lang produce a list of names.

THE POSTER CHILD FOR HIRING IRREGULARITIES:

At the last board meeting, Trustee Fuentes seemed to be concerned about wrongdoing and irregularities in connection with hiring in general. (Something tells me he thinks teachers are lazy and corrupt money-grubbing rat bastards. No?)

Perhaps he is unaware that, for many years, our board was the poster child for hiring process irregularities.

To understand this, you need to go back to the late 90s, before Fuentes entered the picture at SOCCCD. In September of 1997, the selection process that had just yielded Raghu Mathur’s permanent appointment as President of IVC was sufficiently irregular that Trustee Lang was moved to write the district attorney about it. Wrote Lang,

A national search was conducted by the board for a new President of Irvine Valley College. Several internal candidates (including Mr. Raghu Mathur, illegally appointed interim president on April 28, 1997, according to Judge McDonald…) applied for the position along with more than 30 others comprising the initial pool of candidates. In establishing the selection process, the historical method was completely discarded, whereby a screening committee was appointed consisting mainly of the shared governance groups at Irvine Valley College to interview and present to the board the top handful of candidates, with their ratings and recommendations. The current process is a complete “white-wash” since the screening committee neither rates the candidates nor eliminates any candidates, and the entire remaining pool (several applicants [voluntarily] dropped out of the process) of 18 candidates were reinterviewed by the full board of trustees, with no consideration of the committee’s input. The reason the majority of the board prevailed upon the chancellor to adopt the revised process, in my view, was so Mr. Mathur would not be eliminated from the pool. Since I am writing this letter prior to the final candidate interviews, I am predicting that Mr. Mathur will be selected on a 4 - 3 trustee vote to be the next president at Irvine Valley College. It should be noted that during the initial interviews the board majority—consisting of the trustees Frogue, Williams, Fortune, and Lorch—purposely upgraded Mr. Mathur’s raw interview scores while downgrading those of the other candidates to insure his position in the final round. It should be further noted that although my disclosure of same would ordinarily be a closed session matter that I would not be permitted to discuss, both initial trustee interview sessions were also illegal under the Brown Act, due to the fact that the board president failed to open these sessions as public meetings and request public comment before adjourning these meetings to executive session. In summary, the entire appointment process was a complete sham, wasting the time of the entire board and, more importantly, all of the interview candidates. From a letter to Mr. Bruce Moore of the District Attorney’s Office, Sept. 3, 1997


All true. But nothing came of this, of course (the OC DA’s Office is a Fuentespherian nightmare), and the board simply went on to add insult to injury. Six months later (3/26/98), the Irvine World News reported that:

The board of trustees of the South Orange County Community College District voted 4-3 Monday to change district policy on the hiring of administrators.

Trustees Dorothy Fortune, Steven Frogue, Teddi Lorch and John Williams [i.e., the Board Majority] voted for the changes despite recommendations from acting Chancellor Kathleen Hodge…to study the issue further.

The new policy allows trustees to review all candidates for top administrative positions even if they have been eliminated by a screening committee [i.e., the search committee]. Fortune added an amendment to include vice presidents in the policy.

In effect, the board majority made official the controversial actions they took last year in appointing Raghu Mathur as president of Irvine Valley College….

But I kinda like that list idea that Wagner came up with. I think we should ask Fuentes for his list, make 'im hold it up in the air. What do you think?

NOTE: I don't know much about Eric Norby--haven't had time to research him. But it appears that he's smart and that he is some sort of scholar for the Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna. The latter organization does research and, it seems, has provided friendly data or analyses for the movement to redistrict the state. As it turns out, redistricting (to make races more "competitive") is one of Tom Fuentes' big issues. (See Fuentes interview, 12/20/05).

Here are some factoids about his brother, OC Supervisor Chris Norby. Evidently, Chris owes his victory (over C. Coad) to his opposition to the airport (that would associate him with Fuentes, who battled big-money Republican moderates on that issue). He is a long-time opponent of eminent domain, which seems to lead him to oppose all sorts of projects that big-money Republican support (I think). Finally, he's "famous" for suggesting that we rename John Wayne Airport "the OC Airport"--you know, after the popular Fox TV show. He had to recant that one. Norby recently lost a harrassment suit--he lost big. No doubt, he's appealling. Norby seems to have close ties to the Claremont Institute (a neoconservative think tank), on whose board sits Fuentes.

Peevitude in Detail (Dec. 12 transcripts)(Board meeting)

Transcript from the Dec. 12 board meeting (edited; italics by Chunk): 

  INVOCATION [Apparently, the last one]: 

  TRUSTEE DON WAGNER: Lord our God, as we meet in this season of Advent…be present with us here tonight. Move within us and grant to us a resolve and powerful direction to do Your will…. 

….. PUBLIC COMMENTS: MARY WILLIAMS [with apparent near consternation]: 

…I wasn’t going to say anything tonight, and then I looked around at this crowd of dedicated, hard-working classified employees…These individuals have believed sincerely that you are interested in fairly negotiating with us and in coming up with a contract that was acceptable to both sides. We feel we’ve bent over backwards … to bring this to closure and we understand that you’re just not comfortable moving there. I tried to explain to my landlord—he wanted another hundred dollars a month, and I’m not comfortable with that, and he didn’t care…We just want a fair contract, and we wanted it six months ago, and we certainly deserve it now. Thank you. (Applause.) ….. 

TRUSTEE REPORTS: TRUSTEE NANCY PADBERG: I just want to say to the classified staff that we’re working very hard to try to come to some resolution [of contract negotiations], and while I’m wearing red for the holidays, it’s also supportive of you. ..... 

THE [YEARLY] ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: TRUSTEE BILL JAY: I would like to nominate the present board leadership for a repeat performance next year. That means Mr. David Lang nominated as President, Mrs. Nancy Padberg nominated as Vice President, and Mr. Tom Fuentes nominated as Clerk… [Nominations are closed. These three win unanimously.] ..... 

CHANCELLOR RAGHU MATHUR: …I would like to recognize our board president, David Lang…President Lang, … you have been consistently fair and respectful of all people, including me ...You have been genuinely interested in team building…You are always willing to recognize excellence and promote best practices in all of our transactions and in our service to students. Therefore, on behalf of the district faculty, the staff, administrators, managers, the students, and the taxpayers, it is indeed my privilege to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your wonderful leadership…We present this plaque to you. [Tracy takes a snap. Notoriously, Lang’s was the swing vote in the board action, of June ’05, to renew Mathur’s contract.] ..... 

TRUSTEE JOHN WILLIAMS: I’d like to address the issue of the removal of the invocation. Would you like to wait until the vote, or should I present my thoughts now?— TRUSTEE DAVE LANG: This would be the time to comment on that. [Williams makes a motion, but it is not seconded, and it apparently dies. Unless I am very much mistaken, the board approves a new “agenda format” that excludes an invocation.] .....

TRUSTEE LANG: I would like to make a few comments…I recognize the seriousness of the challenges and the opportunities that we face together to represent our communities…I believe that this board as a group has much to be proud of…Our district employs, in my opinion, some of the best faculty and staff in the state, and compensates them accordingly. I believe we have strengthened our communications among us, and are beginning to concentrate more of our efforts on significant issues…We’ve established district goals and board goals. We’re currently conducting a study to update the district’s educational and facilities master plan. These are all worthy and laudable accomplishments, but, of course, we’ll not be allowed to rest on our laurels. … We’ve got significant work to do to address and discuss recommendations that have been raised by the accreditation teams. We’ve got tremendous challenges ahead associated with balancing our current programmatic needs of the colleges with both the current and long-term infrastructure needs for both colleges and ATEP...I look forward to working with all of you in the year ahead and I thank all of you again for your support. 

 ..... THE REGULAR MEETING RECONVENES: THE “CONSENT CALENDAR” SHOOTOUT: PADBERG: 

I want to pull items from the consent calendar…Items 12 to 35 all deal with the [construction of the] IVC theater…. [Consent calendar items are approved in one fell swoop, without discussion. Pulling an item from the CC means devoting meeting time to discussing it and then voting on it. In the past, when a trustee has asked to pull items from the CC, that request has always been honored. That, now, board members urge the chair not to honor such a request is curious.] ….. 

WILLIAMS: Well, I don’t know why we need to pull half the consent calendar. The board should have some discretion on honoring these requests. I think we need to move on with the people’s business here. To pull thirty items from the consent calendar—I’d like to know if fellow trustees made telephone calls to staff to have their questions answered. The chair has discretion here….My question is, why are we pulling approximately thirty items from the consent calendar, when trustees have had at least a week to ask questions of staff if they had any questions?

PADBERG: It is within the discretion of any board member to pull items off the consent calendar. These are significant items having to do with the construction of a multi-million dollar building at IVC. [Putting these items on the consent calendar, as the chancellor has done] I don’t think does good service to the public who watches this meeting. They need to know how millions of dollars are being spent…This [construction project, including the selection of contractors] should probably not have [been placed] on the consent calendar. 

  LANG: …I happen to agree with Trustee Williams…In my view, there is adequate time for board members to ask the Chancellor and staff members about items that are on the consent calendar….[One might speculate that Padberg is not comfortable phoning the Chancellor, an individual who, reportedly, show holds in very low regard.] ….. 

WILLIAMS: …What I think is unnecessary in doing the business of the people is approving over and over the expenditure of the same dollars…I don’t think the viewing audience wants to hear us debate the contractors [for this project]…I would ask the board chair to use some discretion as to whether or not we should pull 29 items from the consent calendar. 

  PADBERG: [Though the expenditures have already been approved,] the contractor selections have not been [approved by the board]. We’re talking about [hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars]. I‘m just looking for some comment from the Chancellor … about the selection [of contractors] process—I understand they’re all the low bidder. However, we’re talking about millions of dollars, and we need to let the public know that. [At this point, Chancellor Mathur explains the process whereby contractors are selected. It would appear that this is all that Padberg wanted in the first place. Mathur explains the oversight involved. Mathur closes by inviting trustees to call him if they have any questions.] ….. 

WAGNER: …I am urging you [i.e., President Lang] to exercise your discretion to move this meeting along…[W]e’ve had all this information in front of us for over a week…and any member of the public who’s interested…can…come on down to the district [to get this information]…Everything here has been done in public, in a completely above-board manner, and any trustee who has a question about a particular sub-contract is free to, and is encouraged by our Chancellor, to contact administration…Let’s make a decision and move on. 

  TRUSTEE MARCIA MILCHIKER: I have to weigh in on the side of Trustee Padberg…[These items add up to over] $18 million…I remember in the past, that the board has been much more hands-on [about the construction of buildings], and every step of the way…we would look [in] every nook and cranny; we would have monthly meetings [about] how the building was progressing. And this is the meeting to conduct the business of the [district]…we’re not… [here] to speed through, to make sure [we]… get out of here by 9:00. Now, we have had this information in front of us for a week, but if there are questions to be asked…a trustee has the ability as an elected official—a million people elect us—[to handle?] the fiduciary responsibilities of the taxpayers to ask questions at the board meeting. So if there are questions, I think they should be answered at the board meeting. 

  PADBERG: …The Brown Act does not allow us to get our questions answered in private and to conduct the business of this board in private…[All that] I want is some comment from the Chancellor about the process. When you’re spending $18 million to do it in a ‘slam-dunk’, it’s just disgraceful. WILLIAMS [clearly peeved]: …There’s absolutely nothing [in the Brown Act] to prevent a board member from doing his or her homework and preparing for a board meeting by reading the agenda, and if you have a question, ask staff….[Williams turns to Mathur:] I have to ask the Chancellor: did any board member contact you about questions about these agenda items? [Mathur answers: “no one.” But then Lang reminds Mathur that Lang had called to ask him about some agenda items.] Yet trustees are saying they want to hear a presentation from you, but they didn’t ask you in advance? …So this is kind of a surprise on the chancellor to all of a sudden come in unprepared and to make comments about numerous agenda items. This is not the way the people’s business was intended to be conducted…This is ridiculous. WAGNER [with Wagnerian peevishness]: …What’s happened here, and what a majority of the board I think objects to, is a wholesale polling of every item….The issue here is not [that?] Trustee Padberg has a particular question with issues, it’s she’s got a philosophical objection to dealing with these on the consent calendar. But with all due respect to Trustee Padberg, this board feels differently, and a majority agrees that it can be handled on a consent calendar. Therefore I say to you…if you have questions, address them to administration in the proper channels in the proper time, and if you don’t get your questions answered about a particular agenda item, raise it here. Don’t screw up the whole business of this board when you are clearly in a minority. The board has voted and has determined to handle these on a consent calendar.

  PADBERG: There has never been a vote about how items are to be placed on the consent calendar, and every single item on the agenda should not be on the agenda unless there’s a staff member prepared to discuss it, consent calendar or not…We’ve debated for probably twenty minutes whether the item should be pulled. We could have been through talking about the item…. 

  WILLIAMS: As the maker of the motion, I don’t accept any changes in my motion…and my motion was to approve the consent calendar. 

  LANG: …I want to have a brief recess while I consult with legal counsel about this matter…

  [After a few minutes:] I have decided that it is appropriate for us to follow our past practice tonight and respect those trustees that have removed items from the consent calendar…Before our next meeting, however, I do intend to consult with district counsel to verify that we [i.e., the majority of trustees] have the authority essentially to approve a consent calendar without having to pull all of the items off in the future. [Lang pushes forward with a vote on the motion to accept the consent calendar—with Padberg’s items removed as per her request. Williams and Wagner dislike the decision. “I can’t support that,” says Williams. The Board votes with their electronic gizmos.] [The student trustee explains that, somehow, his vote is not registering with his gizmo.] 

  LANG: That does not surprise me based on the way this has gone so far. [Much laughter. Then there is a “re-vote.” Fuentes, Padberg, Lang, and Milchiker vote in the affirmative. Jay, Wagner, and Williams vote in the negative.] 

  LANG: It passes 4 to 3. --More (i.e., the debate re the hiring policy) later. --CW 

  THE "HIRING POLICY" DISCUSSION: As you know, the Hiring Policy has had quite an interesting history here in the district. (See the Dec. 13 blog for a review.) To make a long story short, two or three years ago, Chancellor Mathur and the Board Majority unilaterally developed and approved a new hiring policy that shifted power and authority away from faculty and toward administration. This occurred despite the law, which plainly requires that such policies be developed “and agreed upon jointly” by the district and faculty. After a coupla years of litigation, it was (conclusively) determined that the law means what it says and, hence, the district’s unilaterally imposed hiring policy was invalid. Thus it came about that a new policy was developed—this time truly jointly—and approved by the faculty (i.e., the academic senates) and the district’s representatives (namely, the Chancellor and Board President Lang). By Dec. 12, all that remained was board approval. Were the board to reject the new document, the district would be compelled to work with the last hiring policy jointly agreed to (i.e., the 1994 policy). In other words, were the Board to fail to approve the new policy, it would be forced to honor a policy that is even more “faculty friendly.” Under the circumstances, one might suppose that the new policy would be approved without controversy. But no. Trustee Fuentes objected to some of its elements. (Technical note: I did not bring enough videotape to the meeting, and I ran out just as Mr. Fuentes began his remarks. I quickly rewound the tape and started videotaping. Evidently, I did not remind far enough, and so I have no tape of the beginning or the end of this discussion. [The district keeps videotapes and broadcasts the meetings twice.]) 

  FUENTES: [As I recall, Mr. Fuentes began his remarks by noting the composition of the “search committee,” i.e., the group that evaluates applications and then interviews worthy candidates in the hiring process. That committee normally recommends three finalists, who are then interviewed by the President, who makes the final selection. If the committee sends fewer than three names, the President has the power to restart the entire search process. Hence, committee members have a motive to send three when there are three worthy of recommendation. Mr. Fuentes’ objection to the faculty’s choosing four of the seven search committee members flies in the face of that fact and other facts that give to “management” (as he calls it) considerable power and influence in this process.] …I would like to know how many finalists would the committee forward to the [college] President…[according to this new policy], and What would the President do if the committee forwards less than three finalists? And I’d also like to know, What would the President do if cronyism is involved in the hiring process, and he observes it? 

  MATHUR: Let me try the first [question], and I’ll defer to the college presidents about some of the other questions. With respect to the committee composition, I understand that the academic senate will be recommending four…faculty, and the college president will be appointing three [members], including the appropriate dean…. 

  FUENTES: So it is, for the record, to be stated that union membership–the academic senate “slash” labor union—appoints four in the selection process, and the management side of the equation, in the minority of three. [Mr. Fuentes displays a look of mild incredulity.]

  MATHUR: Well, as I stated, the academic senate will be appointing four, and the college president will be appointing three members out of a seven-member committee. [That wasn’t much help, so Lewis offers a comment:] 

  LEWIS L (faculty union president): As the president of the faculty association “slash” labor union, I just want to specify that the labor union has no role in appointing faculty members in the hiring committee at all— 

  FUENTES: Are all the senate members not likely members of the labor union? 

  LEWIS: They may or may not be, but… 

  FUENTES: [Interrupts:] But they could be. 

  LEWIS: But they certainly wouldn’t be functioning in that capacity while they [serve on the committee].  

WENDY G (IVC Academic Senate Pres.): To add clarification: the Education Code is very clear that hiring policy issues and procedures are between the board and the academic senate, not between the faculty association— 

  FUENTES: [Interrupts:] How do labor union members separate themselves in—in that. How do you take one hat off and put another hat on, when you go into that meeting? 

  WENDY: The Ed Code is clear that this is a role of the academic senate and [the] faculty association or the labor union has no role whatsoever in any procedure or provision of the hiring policy. 

  FUENTES: If the Academic Senate members are members of the labor union, how do you separate that?   You 

WENDY: That’s another issue, [one] that has nothing to do with hiring policies. 

  FUENTES: (after a pause): my next question is, Who will write the job description of each faculty vacancy?... [Deputy Chancellor Gary Poertner is called upon to answer the question. Poertner was on the committee that developed the new policy.] 

  FUENTES: [This?] faculty hiring committee, dominated by four members of faculty will have a significant review in the process of developing the description of each faculty vacancy? 

  POERTNER: Yes, it would be the faculty—primarily faculty in the department of the position that’s being hired. They would be the ones who know most about the position and would provide input about what’s needed in its description. 

  WENDY: [The new policy:] …provides that the college president has the final authority in decision-making on all job descriptions, so the management has the final authority and say on all job descriptions. The faculty simply have input into the process. 

  FUENTES: Thank you. My next question is, How many finalists would the committee forward to the President, and what would the President do if the committee forwards less than three finalists? 

  MATHUR: As a general rule, the committee forwards the names of three finalists to the President, and under rare circumstances, the committee may forward less than three, but the President has the option of asking— That’s where my tape cuts out. As I recall, it is next made clear that the new policy gives to the President the power to insist on three names for final interview (by the President). If the committee then asserts that there are not three candidates worthy of recommendation, then the President has the option of going forward or starting the search from scratch. Some of Mr. Fuentes’ questions seem to suggest that he has not read the new policy document carefully, and someone suggests that he should study it. Fuentes responds by suggesting that he can’t do that if he does not have the policy “before” him. It is then noted that the policy is indeed before him. In the end, Mr. Fuentes explains that he cannot “in good conscience” vote for a policy that is biased against “management.” The new policy is adopted on a 6 to 1 vote. I left the meeting soon after, but I have been told that the subsequent discussion of a possible required student evaluation of faculty was “interesting.” You might wanna catch that on TV.

Help the Hearing Challenged

THIS Dissent reporter is kinda deaf, owing to an incident that occurred maybe twenty-five years ago. I went out to the desert with my crazy little brother Ray, and when we got there, Ray pulled out this Saturday Night Special, and he said, "Let's shoot at somethin'." Well, I was always looking for opportunities to do things with my black sheep bro--estrangement was no stranger to him--so, despite my utter lack of interest in guns, I joined him in shootin' up a cactus or something. (In those days, nobody cared.)

He gave me the little pistol and I shot it. Boy did my ears hurt. And they rang. I said, "Is it supposed to be so loud?" Ray laughed.

Well, that was over twenty years ago, and my ears have never stopped ringing.

Excuse me, I've gotta get the phone. --Well, no. That's just the ringing in my ears. Huh? Did you say something? Arrrrgh!

So, a coupla days ago, a friend of mine among the ranks of the classified accosted me in the middle of the noisy & bustling Student Services Center and poured out some kinda story. Evidently, she (or he) doesn't know that I'm hearing challenged. Hear's what I heard:

Blah blah blah blah STORAGE TRAILER. Bu-Blah blah blah blah EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT. Blah bu blah bu blah blah TOYS PILED UP. Blah blah bu blah FELL DOWN ON TOP OF blah bu blah. Blah blah blah BROKEN. Blah ASSH*LE blah blah bu blah I DON'T CARE. Bu bu bu blah, blah blah EXPENSIVE! bu bu blah. Blah blah WE TOLD THAT GLENN blah blah. Blah WAYNE blah bu bu bu blah ASSH*LE!

Then he (or she) spun around, again with great energy, and stalked off. I think I'm supposed to write about this. But I don't know what he (or she) said!


Which reminds me. In grad school, I had a colleague named Fong or Fang. I like to think it was Fang, but I suppose it was Fong. He was from China, and his English wasn't good, and then there's my deafness. So, we were kinda friends, but I almost never understood a thing he said. But, judging by his body language and facial expressions, he was a great guy.

Well, one day, I asked him what his dissertation was about. We were both in the philosophy doctoral program over there at UCI. And philosophers tend to focus on seriously abstract issues. I think my brother (my non-crazy brother), who got a doctorate in philosophy from UCLA, did his dissertation on the idea of a "property." Or was it a "thing"? Not sure. But that's the kind of abstract topic that philosophers write about.

So I asked Fong what his thesis was about, and so, without hesitation, he asserted: "WHAT DUH FUK!"

Huh? What was that again?

"WHAT DUH FUK!"

Ok, Ok. That sounds pretty good I guess.

Well, judging by his expression, he still seemed like a nice guy, so I figured I just didn't understand how that particular phrase could be associated with a dissertation in philosophy. Whadoo I know? Could be, I guess.

A few months later, I found a copy of a draft of Fong's dissertation on somebody's desk. I read it. It's title:

WHAT'S A FACT?

I laughed pretty hard about that one, boy.

Somebody get the goddam phone! --CW

Raghu's "Year in Review"

It’s hard to imagine
That nothing at all
Could be so exciting
Could be so much fun

Heaven
Heaven is a place
A place where nothing,
Nothing ever happens

—From “Heaven” (Talking Heads)

Recently, the Chancellor sent us an email that asks us to click on a link to “a pictorial of the year in review and our season’s greetings.”

(http://www.socccd.org/greetings/Greetings.pps)

We at Dissent recommend that you do as the Chancellor asks. You won’t regret it.

Here’s what you’ll find: a slide show of (count ‘em!) 109 photos, revealing the vivid banality and sparkling meretriciousness that is SOCCCD! Click! Click! Click! Click!

It enervates the spirit!

PLUS it’s all set to rousing martial music whose lurid pomp and majesty and boot-stomping cadences offer an unmistakable allusion to Leni Riefenstahl's timeless "Triumph of the Will"!

The program begins humbly enough, with, first, the district logo, then Saddleback's logo; then IVC’s logo; then ATEP’s. The excitement builds! Our logos inspire! Our district will surely last a thousand years!

We won’t spoil it for you. Suffice it to say that the authors of this program offer a work of art that, in its own way, reflects perfectly who we are and what we’re about (as Trustee Tom says) “at this moment in history.” Really.

--OK, OK, we'll show you a few of the better slides. But that's all.

Slide #26 presents the Chancellor enjoying a moment of wholesome fun with plastic balls. The balls are in the air at "this moment in history."


Slide #54 presents Park Ranger Kopecky lookin' for parking at our spankin’ new “Advanced Technology and Education Park” in beauteous Tustin:


Slide #55 presents what that man's managed to achieve at ATEP in just a few short years. It's monumental!


OK. Can I have a moment of silence while we look at these last ones?








Thank you.

Did I mention that, at Monday's board meeting, the trustees decided to replace the "invocation" with a moment of silence, or a moment of cosmic nullity, or some damn moment? Williams started to harrumph about it, but he was cut off in mid snort somehow. He's pretty good at harrumphitude. In fact, he's strictly harrumphitudinal. --Gotta go. But do check out Raghu's slide show. I think I'm starting to like the fellow.

UPDATE:
Or: "teach Milgram, not Milhouse."

I played the "martial music" for Mr. S, who knows about such things, and he informed me that it was John Philip Sousa's "Hands Across the Sea," a popular "march" piece. I did a little research and found that it is a "patriotic military march composed in 1899...The march was dedicated to all of America's allied countries abroad...." (Wikipedia)

For those unfamiliar with "Triumph of the Will," go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Of_The_Will

The documentary featured major key marches and works by Wagner.

One of the reasons that Raghu's Holiday "slide show" struck us as, well, "martial" is that it includes several pictures of soldiers and the former Marine helicopter station:











Not that we're complaining about the presence of soldiers at the colleges. As far as I'm concerned, they're more than welcome.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

--Thomas Jefferson

DOUBTING THOMAS (December board meeting)

--SOME NOTES on the Dec. 12 meeting of the Board of Trustees. PREBICKERMENT: There was a seriously weird vibe in the air when I entered the board room at just before 7:00. For once, all of the trustees were in their seats and they were looking forward in silence. Something was up. Maybe they got a heads up on the Accred reports. I dunno. Trustee Fuentes announced that some guy named King was approved as the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. Nothing was announced concerning the classified contract, which remains in limbo. Several classified employees--and some faculty--spoke in support of a "fair contract" for classified. Dozens of red-shirted classified filled the seats in the auditorium. During the yearly "organizational" meeting--they've gotta unconvene and reconvene for that--the existing officers were given another year to mess things up. That means that Dave Lang will continue as President of the Board for another year.

  CURIOUS CONSENT CALENDAR CLASH: Items 12 through 35, which concerned the construction of the IVC "performing arts" center, were on the "consent calendar," which means that Lang hoped for summary approval on those items. But Trustee Padberg asked to pull those items from the CC in order to ask questions about them. Evidently, these items concerned tens of millions of dollars, and the Nance wanted to let the public in on how that money would be spent, etc. Now, as far as I know, in the past, any time a trustee has asked to pull something from the CC, the request has been honored as a matter of course. But not on this night. Williams and Wagner seemed to come unglued over the whole business, and they got seriously nasty about it, even suggesting that Nancy hadn't done her homework, that she shoulda looked at her packet more carefully and telephoned staff, etc. Lang and Mathur (& Fuentes?) seemed to chime in on Williams/Wagner's vibe. Meanwhile, Marcia M, sensing a dogpile, joined Nancy's team. She did a good job backing up Nancy. In the end, Lang sided with Nancy, but only because the board's lawyer, Warren Kinsler, had already left for home, and Lang wanted to consult with him about whether he could blow off Nancy's request. Kinsler, you'll recall, is the sharpie who lost the "hiring policy" suit for the board. (Well, really, it was the law that lost it for 'em.)

  PRIDE, BEWILDERMENT, PRIZES: At one point, Lang made some remarks that seemed to be his "state of the district" speech. He declared that there's a lot for the board to be proud of. This provoked much bewilderment. It was about then that Mathur stood up to give Dave some kinda prize for excellence or something. It was pretty icky, and I don't even use that word. 

  TOM BRIEFLY WRESTLES SATAN: Well, after a bit, the meeting got started in earnest, and, among the items was # 48, approval of the full-time faculty hiring policy. You'll recall that, two or three years ago, Mathur formed a committee to develop a new hiring policy, but he didn't invite faculty to the table, despite the law, which requires that development and approval of that policy be joint between the "district" and the "academic senates" (i.e., the faculty). Naturally, Mathur produced an absurdly anti-faculty policy that the Board Majority just loved. The latter rammed it through, despite vociferous faculty objections. Said Wagner at the time: you don't like it? So "sue us." So the senates sued and won and the process started again. This time Mathur and his pals pushed through a similarly odious policy, only this time with faculty at the table, but they were rendered helpless to stop it. Judge Smith seemed to have it in for faculty, and, absurdly, he judged that that second policy was produced with mutual agreement, despite faculty's explicit and repeated rejection of it.

  Faculty took the decision to appellate court and won bigtime. In the meantime, the Accred's turned up the heat on Mathur and his Micromanagers about their nasty and lawless ways, and so Mathur was very cooperative with the next and most recent effort to develop a policy. A month or so ago, the two sides did produce a nice little policy, and Mathur, with the Accreds still breathing hard down his neck, brought it to the board last night, hoping to get this "hiring policy" thing behind him. Whew! Well, everybody was on board with that--except Tom Fuentes, who, as you know, views faculty as rodents. Unionized rodents. Satanic, Darwin-loving rodents.

  So he picked away at the new policy, complaining about the possibility of "cronyism," a perfect instance of the pot calling the kettle black. Fuentes carped that the composition of the search committee is biased (4/3) toward faculty and against "management." He opined that faculty are also members of the union, and so, if 4 of the 7 committee members are faculty, then the union controls the process. That's some logic! Others pointed out that, in fact, "management" was an equal partner on the team that produced this new draft, and so they obviously felt that the new policy is fair to "management." Plus, in the end, management, i.e., the college presidents, can reject the names put up for final interview and can insist on getting three candidates, etc. In the end, they've got the power, not faculty. Plus (noted Williams) there's an EEOC rep on every committee to keep things on the up 'n' up, fairness-wise. None of this seemed to pacify the Fuenster, who continued to grumble disapprovingly and toss rude darts at the policy. TOMMY 

DIDN'T DO HIS HOMEWORK: At one point, one of our Academic Senate presidents suggested that, in view of Fuentes' comments, it seemed that the fellow hadn't read the policy. Fuentes snorted and said that he didn't have the policy "before" him, i.e., how's I guy supposed to read something if it isn't provided? But, in fact, the policy was in Fuentes' packet. He'd had it for a week. Oh yeah? But what about cronyism? countered Fuentes. Cronyism! Cronyism! Cronyism! The college presidents and Mathur then explained that they could police the process re cronyism and other potential horrors just fine. In the end, Fuentes explained that he really appreciated all the work "managers" put into this new draft--he seemed to exclude faculty from his gratitude--but, he added, he couldn't "in good conscience" vote for a policy that was so biased against "management." Lang said he took "exception" to Fuentes' viewing the policy as unfair to management. He said that there are adequate "checks and balances" in the system in terms of the new policy. Padberg reminded us that she hadn't voted for the earlier policy--the faculty-unfriendly policy--but she was happy to vote for this new one. She said that she, too, appreciated all the work that went into it. She included faculty in her thanks. The Board voted approval, 6/1. I left at 9:30, so I don't know what happened next, but I'll get you an update soon.

  UPDATE: DECEMBER 2004: Do you remember how, a year ago, Chancellor Mathur didn't have the four votes he needed to get his contract renewed? Remember how, for months, we thought he might actually be toast? But then, somehow, things changed: inexplicably, Trustee Lang was singin' a different tune about Raghu and, by summer, Mathur was back on top. Not only was his contract renewed, but he now received a quarter million dollar salary! At the time, Dave told his supporters among the faculty (he used to have some) that Mathur could change. Said Dave, Raghu can become the kind of administrator he is supposed to be. --You know, the non-tyrannical, non-scheming, non-duplicitous kind. Just give the poor fellow a chance! 

  DECEMBER 2005: Did you read Tracy's "Board Meeting Highlights" for last night's meeting? Open it up, and you see three photos. The second one shows Lang and Mathur. "What's that about?" you ask. Well, according to Tracy, Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur congratulated President Lang and commended him for his genuine interest in team building and willingness to recognize excellence. Yeah, I was there, and that's just what happened. No comment.