1. SMILEY FACES. I don’t know the details, but it is plain that the faculty members of the committee that has been hammering out a faculty hiring policy agreeable to both faculty and the district have smiley faces. For all I know, the other members of the committee have smiley faces too.
Smiley faces means that we’ll soon have a good faculty hiring policy. Hey, I know. Why don’t you show up at the board meeting tonight to find out?
[UPDATE (Oct. 27): The district and senate have indeed agreed upon a faculty hiring policy. Looks like a good one. All that remains is for the Board to approve it. That seems very likely. --CW]
2. EXCELLENT WATCHDOGGERY. I took a gander at the full agenda for tonight’s board meeting. As you know, item 20 concerns the “demand” to cure or correct the board’s Brown Act violations of September 13. For the "special (closed) meeting" of Sept. 13, the Board advertised (agendized) that it would be evaluating the performance of the Chancellor. In fact, it discussed the Chancellor’s “goals,” a matter that is not among those allowed for closed session by the Brown Act.
When I first saw the (short) agenda item on Thursday, I thought it was good news. Then, when I read the portion of the Ralph M. Brown Act that is cited on the brief agenda description, I thought it was bad news. (See earlier post.)
Well, we’re back to good news. Earlier today, I was finally able to examine the full-on agenda paper work for item 20. Item 20 is a recommendation, by the Chancellor, that the trustees “adopt Resolution 05-41 in response to Ms. [Wendy] Gabriella’s Oct. 13 demand for cure and correction….”
Resolution 05-41 (see above) essentially amounts to (a) the assertion that no violation of the Brown Act occurred, plus (b) an action of curing and correcting any possible violation “to avoid the waste of time and money associated with the potential litigation of this meritless claim.”
The upshot: if the board accepts the Chancellor's recommendation--and who can resist the fellow?--then the board will tonight do in public what, on Sept. 13, they did in private: they'll be curing and correcting their Brown Act violations--er, their "alleged" Brownie violations.
You can see for yourself, but the crucial language seems to be this:
In order to cure and correct the alleged violation of the Brown Act as set forth in the October 13, 2005, correspondence from Ms. Gabriella, which alleged violation the Board denies, the Board will accept for review and
study in public session at its meeting on October 24, 2005, item 21 relating to District goals for implementation by the Chancellor to provide a copy of this Resolution to Ms. Gabriella, informing her of the action taken ….Congratulations Ms. Gabriella! Excellent watchdoggery!
(Note: contrary to the agenda item, in this instance, Wendy was acting as a private citizen, not as the President of the IVC Academic Senate.)
(Wendy was among the attorneys that prevailed in two Brown Act suits brought against the SOCCCD board in the late 90s. Chunk was a petitioner in those cases.)
