NOVEMBER 3:At about 12:30 this afternoon, two representatives of the ACCJC/WASC (the accrediting agency) met with about twenty IVC faculty. As you know, full teams visited both colleges of the district about a year ago, and ACCJC subsequently granted both colleges “reaccreditation,” but in the very lowest category. Essentially, each college got a D.
This did not prevent Lang & Mathur from spinning the ACCJC's judgment as a "thumbs up" and a "validation...of the excellence of our institutions.“ (See press release, 2/2/05.) In truth, our colleges were in a bit of trouble.
Colleges that get a D are expected to make improvements in response to the agency's recommendations. Further, the colleges are required to submit “progress reports”—to be followed by a visit from the Accreds. Well the reports are in, and now the Accreds are visiting.
IVC's progress report, which cited many positives and some negatives, was described by more than one of its authors as being "as honest as it could be." Translation: it coulda been much more negative, but an effort was made to look on the bright side. That's hard to do at IVC, which seems to be in an eternal night, especially now that Raghu Mathur has won fabulous cash prizes and the keys to a fancy Mercedes.
Well, Accred bigwig Deborah Blue and her colleague finally showed up in our hideous portable building at about 12:40 and the meeting got underway. Blue asked about the “Technical Assistance” (TA) matter. There are particular issues (e.g., defining faculty duties and responsibilities, I think) that remain unresolved between the district and the faculty, and both the Academic Senates and the district have expressed a desire to pursue “technical assistance,” that is, they desire bringing in objective third parties to hammer out a reasonable agreement.
IVC’s Senate President explained that, in the past, the district (i.e., Chancellor Mathur) has consistently rejected the TA route--until, that is, the intransigent district was smacked around by the Accrediting agency’s recommendations a year ago. She also explained that the two academic senates are pursuing the possibility of having the AAUP, those champions of Academic Freedom, represent faculty in TA.
Blue asked how long it has been that the district has rejected technical assistance. The Senate Prez explained that the district’s anti-TA ways go back at least to 2000, when the district changed Board Policy 2100.1, which concerns delegation of district authority to Academic Senates. The version of 2100.1 that then existed provided that 2100.1 itself could only be changed upon mutual agreement of district and senates.
With typical ruthlessness, back in 2000, the board unilaterally changed 2100.1. Upon doing so, 2100.1 no longer included the “mutual agreement” provision!
No, I’m not making this up. See our ARCHIVES, starting with February, 2000.
Given that TA was impossible (for it can occur only when both parties seek it), the Academic Senates had no recourse but to appeal to the State Chancellor’s Office. That agency ultimately judged that the district’s actions violated Title V of the Ed Code. No surprise there.
THE PLAGUE OF DESPAIR. Blue asked about the campus climate—now, verses a year ago.
Several instructors said that relations between the Academic Senate and the college administration have improved over the past year. Faculty and administration have worked well together. For instance, they successfully collaborated in writing the accreditation “progress report.”
But, according to these instructors, the faculty’s relationship with the district (i.e., with the Chancellor and Board) remains dismal. To illustrate the point, Lewis explained that faculty have enjoyed a good working relationship with Vice Chancellor Tom Anderson. But it appears that, owing to Anderson’s coziness with faculty, he has now been handed his walking papers. The Board has sent the poor fellow to the Siberian frontier of Tustin, where he cleans quonset huts and rotates blimps.
Thus, re relations between IVC and the district, the “plague of despair” detected by the Accreditation team a year ago persists. Or so said several faculty.
OVERWORKED DEANS. Ms. K explained that she has been absent for four years (she was away to serve as president of the state academic senate), and, now that she’s back, here is what she sees: overworked deans, who simply can’t do all that is required of them. Faculty have scrambled to take up the slack, typically without compensation, she said. If I heard her correctly, she asserted that she now finds an “appalling, dismal lack of energy.”
Despite these difficult circumstances, chimed the Senate Prez, remarkable things have been accomplished, e.g., Program Review, work on the SLO initiative, and the progress report, among other things.
A CULTURE OF MICROMANAGEMENT. Among the elements of the Accrediting Agency’s ding-age of last January was that old favorite, board “micromanagement.” (Weren't they dinged for this back in '98? Do these people ever learn?) Lewis explained that the board has adopted an “interesting” approach to that complaint, namely, the Board President (Lang) has become the de facto Chancellor. Routinely, when asked a question, the Chancellor refers the questioner to Mr. Lang, the man with the answers. (Occasionally, jokesters refer to the omnipresent Lang as "the Chancellor.")
Lewis hypothesized that the trustees are so entrenched in their culture of micromanagement, that they can no longer see it even when they’re in it up to their collective eyeball.
One instructor asserted that some of our administrators try to do a good job, that they genuinely want to do the right thing, but they are fearful. More than one instructor described these administrators as always “looking over their shoulders.” They operate in “an environment of fear.”
“Yeah,” said one wit, “they don’t want to get Andersoned.”
NOT OPTIMISTIC. Greg noted that the Senate has been working very hard to do the necessary work of the college, including writing the progress report. He asserted that the senate has worked diligently for this college to retain its accredited status.
That is true. The senate has led the way in accomplishing necessary tasks, when adminsitration has dropped the ball, or kicked it into the strawberry fields. But the Senate has not received much support. "I'm not optimistic," said one instructor.
There are Mathurians who have joined their hero in consistently portraying faculty as working against the functioning of the college and against reaccreditation. Anyone who has served on the Academic Senate in recent years knows that the truth is entirely to the contrary.
I recall Padberg and Wagner's election to the board in 1998. I invited the two to campus to show them around. Wagner took me up on it. I told him that he needed to get to know us, to talk with us. I suggested that the board is too removed from the actual workings of the colleges. Trustees need to get their own impressions of who faculty are and what we do based on interaction and conversation.
But it was to no avail. It seems that the trustees are largely content to let Mathur do their thinking for them with regard to conditions in the trenches. And, according to the notoriously dishonest Raghu, faculty are trying to "destroy the colleges" and "undermine our accreditation."
Trustees, are you reading this? GO ASK GLENN. Ask him if faculty are working to undermine this college. Skip Raghu. Go to Glenn. Go to Dennis. Got to Gwenn. Please pass Goo. Go directly to THOSE WHO WORK WITH FACULTY. Hear what they have to say. Please!
One instructor noted that IVC has for some time been in the mid-range category for college size, but, recently, the college has officially dipped back down to the “small college” category!
Another instructor explained that, for a time (namely, last spring), the college community was palpably optimistic. That optimism sprung from one thing: the likely prospect of non-renewal of Raghu Mathur’s contract!
The “spirit of despair was lifted,” he said.
Ah, but then, all of a sudden, spirits crashed to earth. Not only was Mathur’s contract renewed, but the fellow received a stunning raise, some of it retroactive. He's the Quarter Million Dollar Man.
One instructor was bothered by such negative talk. She insisted that the college is “moving forward,” that things are “working well.” But others in the room sought to refute her perception.
A long-time supporter of Raghu Mathur—Mr. R, a fellow infamous for his blatant bowdlerization of the 1998 IVC accreditation self-study drafts—spoke in defense of his pal. R reported that he does not see people walking around in despair.
R described a board meeting (in May) in which people emerged from beneath various rocks to offer encomia of praise for Mathur.
He noted, too, that the final paragraphs of the progress report refer to a “climate of despair.” Mr. R denied that there is any evidence at all that such a climate exists or that Chancellor Mathur’s leadership is unpopular.Mr. R did not quote from the progress report. Here is what it actually says:
From the faculty and staff perspective, the most significant issue relative to the climate of despair that continues to plague the college is the renewal of the chancellor’s contract on June 21, 2005. On May 17, 2004, 93.5% of the district faculty voted no confidence in the chancellor. (The California League of Women Voters mailed 318 ballots to all full- time faculty within the district. 246 faculty participated in the vote (77% of the faculty responded). 230 votes (93.5%) expressed no confidence in the leadership of the chancellor; 15 votes (6%) expressed confidence in the leadership of the chancellor; one ballot was unmarked, and counted as an abstention. The vote was conducted by and certified by the California League of Women Voters.) It is the view of the faculty that by renewing the chancellor’s contract, the board majority has continued to dismiss the voice of the faculty thereby causing dismay, concern, and further despair…Despite repeated efforts by the faculty association, IVC and SC academic senates, the classified senate, and CSEA to convey their concerns to the board president and other members of the board, the trustees voted 4-2-1 to renew the contract and granted the chancellor a substantial retroactive increase in salary as well as a substantial salary increase. These actions outraged dissenting board members and faculty. Approximately 75 faculty members attended the June 21, 2005 board meeting. Almost all faculty who attended the meeting were there to protest, to voice their opposition to the board’s actions regarding the chancellor’s contract….
DYSFUNCTION. Mr. D spoke up to rebut R’s points. He reminded us of the stunning “no confidence” vote re Mathur (Raghu’s third and least "confident"). If that is not evidence of difficulty with the district's leadership, then what is?
Mr. D described a Board forum that he attended in which participants were inspired to ask such fundamental questions as, “Who are we (as a college)?” That, at this late stage, we must ask such questions reveals our profound dysfunction, he said. We have many highly-paid administrators, said D, and yet the board seems to cast about for volunteers among faculty to assist in recruitment and public relations.
Mr. D noted that we have a culture of “inbreeding”—the same people persist in positions of authority—and that an inbred culture can produce “no new ideas.” We need fresh, new, visionary leadership, he said.
STILL DICTATING. Blue asked about the “Chancellor’s Cabinet,” the weekly occasion in which governance groups interact with the Chancellor. How is that going?The Senate Prez cited one major improvement, for the senate and other governance groups are now permitted into “docket meetings”—where board topics are decided. But, said she, Chancellor’s Cabinet continues to be the Chancellor’s dictating to other governance groups.
She cited the case of the recently-adopted district and trustee “goals.” These goals were developed in a closed session in mid-September. When these goals were finally revealed, some governance groups noted the curious fact that many of them had already been achieved.
One naturally suspects that the Chancellor and the board were listing such goals merely for the sake of appearing to be achieving things.
When governance groups questioned the inclusion of these curious goals, the Chancellor ”shut them down.”
The good news, said the Senate Prez, is that all of the governance groups, aside from the Board/Chancellor, are on the same page. They express a unified view, but it does not matter. Their view has “no impact.”
THE BIG BUT. After about 35 minutes, time had run out. Dr. Blue then stated that she and her colleague seemed to be sensing a better atmosphere this time, that people at the college were more willing to speak up.
—But there’s always a BIG BUT.
She added: But we hear what the “pervasive sentiment” is.
She did not identify the sentiment. She didn’t have to. —CW
