The district’s problem? Why, that would be faculty macromanagement! (AUDIO FILE)

As you know, not long ago, the Accreditors spanked the colleges hard, mostly because of the conduct of the board of trustees and the Chancellor (see yesterday’s blog, which lists the Accred’s recommendations re the district).

Nevertheless, in recent meetings, trustee Fuentes has made remarks that suggest that he rejects the Accreditors' criticisms, especially with regard to its complaint that the board meddles or “micromanages” in district and college affairs. Indeed, based on his various remarks over the months, it seems clear that, in Mr. Fuentes’ mind, the Accreditors’ assessment of the district’s problems is radically misguided. The problem, in his view, isn’t that the board and Mathur misbehave; rather, it is that faculty misbehave.

Given some of his remarks, it is clear, also, that Mr. Fuentes embraces a conspiracy theory according to which the faculty of the district, when they are not attempting to control the colleges, control the Accreditors and their reports.

On Monday night, no doubt in part because of some of Mr. Fuentes’ reckless public remarks, Chancellor Mathur attempted damage control. He recommended to the board that it embrace a resolution, the gist of which is that, just in case there is any doubt,

the board embraces (it agrees with, it does not reject!) the Accreditors’ recommendations and it is committed to “addressing” those recommendations.

Below, I have provided audio of the curious discussion that occurred Monday night regarding that recommendation (item #28).

Here's the draft brought to the meeting:


The audio begins with an introduction by Chancellor Mathur. Next, Trustee Lang asks that the vote regarding 28 be taken.

At that point, that Mr. Fuentes interrupts to object to the resolution’s language. His says that he is unwilling to vote for the resolution unless it is amended to include mention of the “macromanagement” of “others."

In particular, Fuentes focuses on the fourth “whereas” of the resolution:

Whereas, the Board and District are committed to clarifying the respective leadership roles and scopes of authority of College and District constituent groups and governance committees in meaningful, collegial decision making processes; and

Fuentes suggests adding the following phrase at the end:

“to avoid macromanagement on the part of other constituent groups”

Mathur responds: “that would be acceptable to me.”

At that point, Trustee Milchicker expresses bewilderment regarding Fuentes’ suggestion or intent. Fuentes responds in an unhelpful way, but he then seems to drop the ball into Mathur’s lap. Mathur picks it up, and he then reminds everyone that, in his recent comments (see yesterday’s blog), he too indicated that the macromanagement of faculty is a concern. He says that we need to be careful that “people are not overreaching.”

“Precisely,” says Fuentes.


Marcia again complains of unclarity. Fuentes then amends his suggestion. Now, he suggests adding this phrase:

“to avoid macromanagement and overreach by constituent groups.”

The problem, of course, is that the Accreditors made no recommendation concerning “overreach” by other constituent groups since it did not find that other constituent groups overreached. Marcia makes that point.

Eventually, student Trustee Ho expresses concern that this sort of action (he does not say “defiant action,” but his meaning is clear) might not be well received by Accreditors. It could threaten the colleges’ accreditation.

Fuentes responds by saying, “Paul, don’t buy off on [the idea] that we’re under the hammer of pulling your accreditation.”


Mathur eventually offers yet another edit that amounts to the same thing:

Whereas, the Board and District are committed to clarifying the respective leadership roles and scopes of authority of College and District constituent groups and governance committees in meaningful, collegial decision making processes, thereby avoiding macromanagement by constituent groups;

The motion passes: Lang, Williams, Fuentes, and Wagner vote FOR the revised resolution.

(Padberg is absent). Milchiker and Jay vote against it.

PART 1 (about 3 minutes)

PART 2 (about 3 minutes)