Friday, March 24, 2006

The Lyin' King

At the March 2 IVC Academic Senate meeting, senators discussed Chancellor Mathur’s curious new “planning process,” which pretty much leaves faculty out of planning. No surprise there. The new process had been authored by the corrupt little fellow. He had not solicited senate input.

That is illegal, for Title 5 and BP 2100.1 require that the district rely primarily on the Academic Senate(s) for the development of processes for institutional planning and budget development. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Academic Senate Prez Wendy then explained that, during a meeting with the Chancellor that very day, after lengthy discussion with the two senate presidents (Claire and Wendy), Mathur acknowledged that he made a mistake when he developed the District Planning Process without consulting the Senates. He even apologized for the error and promised that he would not commit it again.

That was welcome news. Still, senators were unhappy. Some, including yours truly, pressed for clarification regarding the standing of the illegal planning process. Is it dead or no?

We know our Raghu. It would be just like him to acknowledge that he was in error and even to promise not to commit the error again—and then to set about implementing the erroneous action. That’s just standard Mathurian operating procedure.

According to the published minutes for the March 2 meeting, “Senators pointed out that despite the admission of wrongdoing, the apology, and the assurance of non-interference, the District Planning Process remains in place and will continue to create confusion among deans and faculty until it is withdrawn.”

Thus the senators took action. They requested “that the Chancellor immediately discontinue implementation of the illegitimate District Planning Process or the Academic Senate will consider filing a Minimum Conditions Complaint with the office of the State Chancellor.” (From minutes.)

During a subsequent meeting, the fellow clarified matters to Wendy in the way desired. He agreed that the new process should be (or already was?) discontinued. How could he do otherwise?

Wendy then wrote IVC faculty, delivering the good news.

But, in a kind of “switcheroo” that will be familiar to long-time Mathur observers, Mr. Goo then cried foul and denied that he had agreed to discontinue the process. Evidently, despite acknowledging the impropriety of his unilateral development of the process, he persists in viewing the process as valid.

Stunning. —But no. It’s just Raghu bein’ Raghu. The New Raghu that we've heard so much about (from Dopey Dave) is just the Old Raghu sayin’ he’s New. Woo-hoo.


And so, on the 23rd (yesterday), the "planning process" issue returned to the IVC Academic Senate. Clearly, Wendy was disinclined to pursue this matter through the existing legal channels, namely, filing a complaint with the State Chancellor. That’s slow and tedious, bigtime. I think maybe she’s had her fill of this kind of legal work for a while.

But senators were adamant: we cannot threaten to go to the State Chance if Mathur does not fly right, and then not go to the State Chance when, in fact, Mathur keeps flyin’ wrong. We said we’d turn to the State Chance, and so now we've got to keep our word.

A motion was made to that effect.

Wendy groaned. She suggested that we change the motion so that it speaks of “exploring” this avenue. But senators would not hear of it. Said one senator: “If you tell your kid that if he does that again, then there’ll be consequences, then, when he goes and does it again, you can’t say, ‘we will now explore consequences.’”

We’ve got some funny senators, boy.

The motion passed unanimously. The IVC senate will now file a Minimum Conditions Complaint.

Soon, the Saddleback College (or, as one of our favorite administrators spells it, “Saddle Back College”) Academic Senate will meet to discuss the planning process. Don’t be surprised if they take a similar action.

And can you blame 'em? We faculty are supposed to have a role, and these people--Mathur and his board patrons--keep taking it away. We can't let that happen.

Naturally, the Accreds will hear about this. We might wanna start looking for new jobs.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Here we go again. Why won't these people obey the law?

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...