Wagner, Padberg, and Milchiker file for reelection

From this morning's Irvine World News (SOCCCD, p. 8):

Three board of trustees incumbents for the South Orange County Community College District have filed for re-election: President [sic] Donald Wagner, Vice President Nancy Padberg and board member Marcia Milchiker.

Wagner represents area two, which includes parts of Tustin, Santa Ana and Irvine. He has been on the board since 1998 and served as board president from 2002 through 2004. Padberg represents area four, which includes San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Coto de Caza, Los Flores and Talega. She also has been on the board since 1998, serving as president for two years and vice president for five. Milchiker represents area five, which includes Laguna Woods, Laguna Niguel and parts of Laguna Hills. She has been on the board since 1985, serving as president, vice president and clerk.

Milchiker is the only candidate who has completed all the paper work necessary to run in the Nov. 7 election. Candidates have until Aug. 11 to file.

July, 1996

STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER
SADDLEBACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

TRUSTEE AREA 3

DOROTHY FORTUNE
AGE 56

OCCUPATION: RETIRED COLLEGE ENGLISH AND HISTORY TEACHER

The Saddleback Community College District must prioritize its resources and restructure its budget to accommodate a growing enrollment. Increased class offerings and improved community service can only be achieved through budget restructuring.

Students cannot get into required classes to complete their programs. Redirecting funds will increase the number of basic courses transferable to state universities and offer additional job-skill classes.

Only 35% of Saddleback District's $70 million annual budget is spent on classroom instruction compared to grade and high school allocations averaging 65%. The District makes huge expenditures on a hierarchy of administrators, consultants and attorneys, but no proper cost accounting is made available to the public.

A majority of' District 'Trustees must be willing to force the administration to become student centered. Some current Trustees recognize this and will join my efforts to slash bureaucratic spending and establish prudent objectives

I support community outreach through satellite centers offering basic and Emeritus courses. I favor college activities promoting traditional values and responsibility.

Saddleback and Irvine Valley Colleges must focus on student needs and fiscal accountability. I promise to work for those goals. Thirty years [sic] experience in higher education and private business has prepared me for the position of Trustee.

(Signed by Dorothy Fortune, July 16, 1996)

SOCCCD's Kinsler pipes up

The OC Register reports today on the Capo district’s alleged Brown Act violations during closed board sessions:

Closed CUSD meeting draws criticism
Worst example of meeting-law violation in 25 years, attorney says.

According to the counsel for Californians Aware, Terry Francke, the Capo board’s violations are egregious. (The Reg calls Francke, who has in the past opined on SOCCCD issues, "One of the state's foremost experts on open-meetings law.")

In the relevant instances, the Capo trustees were supposedly discussing "criteria for evaluation" of the district Superintendent. But it's very hard to see how that is so.

But guess who’s on hand to defend Superintendent James Fleming and CUSD trustees’ broad interpretation of Brown Act provisions? Why, that would be SOCCCD’s own Warren Kinsler, the fellow who represented the district regarding its—illegal, as it turns out—imposition of a faculty hiring policy over Academic Senate objections.

According to Kinsler, you definitely get to go with a "broad" interpretation of "criteria of evaluation." So there.

The Register spoke with Francke and Peter Scheer, exec director of the California First Amendment Coalition. According to those two, CUSC meeting notes indicate that, in closed session, trustees discussed such items as:

•which school calendar to adopt,

•whether to advertise on school buses,

•a presentation on No Child Left Behind

According to Scheer: "Any reasonable person looking at these minutes would be unlikely to come away thinking he had just observed a performance evaluation…He'd come away thinking he'd just seen what most people would call a school board meeting."

Francke is calling on the district attorney to file charges.

Our district attorney? Don't hold your breath.

Well compensated South Orange County Community College District Chancellor asks for raise and is rebuffed by trustees

At last night’s meeting of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees, the board acted to reject Chancellor Raghu Mathur’s recommendation that he be granted a $20,000 raise and a retroactive cost of living adjustment.

A year ago, many in the district were surprised when the board voted to give Mathur—who has received three faculty votes of “no confidence” during his career as an administrator within the district, including a 93.5% vote just two years ago—a salary increase that amounted to over a quarter of a million dollars, when medical benefits and perks are included.

The unpopular Mathur, whose actions have instigated expensive litigation against the district over the years, and who once sued the district, is among the highest paid CEOs in the California community college system.

Item 28 on last night’s agenda was “Academic Personnel Actions,” recommended by the Chancellor, which included “additional compensation” for the Chancellor.

An attached exhibit described the recommended “compensation revision” as follows:

(1) Dr. Mathur will receive a cost of living adjustment…to his base salary for the fiscal year 2006/07, based on the State of California 2006/07 budget as approved by the Governor;

(2) the District will pay Dr. Mathur for all his accrued but unused vacation days above 48 days; and

(3) Dr. Mathur will receive a salary equity adjustment of $20,000 for 2004-05, with all of these items effective July 1, 2006

When trustees emerged from the closed session that precedes the open board session, rumors flew that trustees was angered by Mathur’s “compensation” request. Then, when item 28 came up during the open meeting, board president David Lang announced that parts of section H of 28—the section dealing with Mathur’s “compensation”—would be “pulled.”

Specifically, items (1) and (3) of Mathur’s compensation recommendation were pulled, leaving only (2), which concerns paying Mathur for his unused vacation days.

Apparently, the board had decided not even to consider Mathur’s proposed raise.

Even Mathur’s remaining “unused vacation days” request proved controversial. Trustee Nancy Padberg argued that the district should be consistent in observing an “if you don’t use it, you lose it" policy.

Nancy Padberg and Marcia Milchiker were the sole trustees to vote against Mathur’s requested payment for unused vacation days.

Last night’s board meeting: "no blue mountains"

By 7:00, the board had not yet emerged from its closed session and we in the auditorium waited and complained about the heat.

A rumor flew that Mathur had requested a raise. The nerve of the fellow!

I spoke with a Saddleback College employee who opined that the public sector is so “forgiving.” It’s not like the private sector, he said.

“Mathur couldn’t manage a Taco Bell,” he declared.

Another rumor circulated that Bob King, the new VC of HR, was being suggested for the role of in-house legal counsel. When, less than a year ago, King was hired, many speculated that King would likely end up doing legal work for the district. It was all very conspiratorial.

Obviously, King is not qualified to serve as general counsel for a community college district. He has little experience in the relevant law. What would motivate Mathur to make King general counsel?

Bob sure is interesting though. Did you know that King and his wife run a business called “Legally Nanny”? (Legally Nanny)

At their website, one learns that “At Legally Nanny, we are committed to helping you hire your nanny legally, maximizing your tax savings, and providing you with more time to spend with your family.”

One of the sections of the website is called “getting caught.” Check it out.

Park Ranger Bob Kopecky joked about the “rustic conditions” over at ATEP. He entertained us with stories of his wrestling with unruly air conditioning units and such.`

After a while, the trustees wandered into the hall and, as usual, when they were all seated, a strange tomb-like silence fell upon the room.

Williams launched into a prayer: “Oh Heavenly Father…Give us wisdom…to do what is right….”

Claire was treated to a big fancy “resolution” in praise of her efforts as Saddleback College Academic Senate President. It appears that she is well liked and respected even by administration. She’s “passionate,” said Lang. She’s “a delight to work with,” said Rich McCullough.


During board reports there were lots of references to the national championship recently won by Saddleback College’s surf team. “It’s about time,” said one trustee.

During board report requests, Williams asked for a report on installing “security cameras” all over the place. Fuentes didn’t seem to like the idea.

Bill Jay wanted a report on the possibility of a Saddleback soccer team. He suggested adding artificial turf somewhere for the football team, which would free up the old football practice field for soccer.

He mentioned all the excitement about the World Cup competition and the fact that the U.S. team was “eliminated by Chad of all places!” We all cringed.

Luckily, there were no Chadsters in the room.

Lang, wearing his Accreditation watchdog hat, reminded the board that there exists a process for establishing programs and priorities of this sort, and we don’t want to ignore or circumvent that. Williams countered by saying, I think, that the board gets to add its two cents anyway, cuz it represents the taxpayers. Thousands of 'em.

It's democratic!

Fuentes, seeking to poke a pin in the big blue soccer balloon, joked that the remaining discussion should be carried out in Italian.

In the end, all but Lang supported Jay’s request.

Item 25 concerned approval of “board policy revisions.” Among these was a hard-fought new policy re “employment procedures for chancellor” (BP 4011.6).

Nancy thought the policy was too long. ("There are too many notes in this song.") Lang spanked Nancy for not presenting her points earlier. Williams said that the policy represented “best practices.” Wendy and Gary reminded everyone that the Accreds dinged us for not having a chancellor hiring policy, and governance groups were hoping to cite board approval of a policy during the next round of Accredulosity. Delaying approval of 4011.6 would mess that up.

In the end, the board voted unanimously to approve 4011.6.

There was some discussion of a 120-page report designed to shed light on the organizations proposed for “institutional memberships.” You’ll recall that, last time around, trustee Wagner advocated removing the American Library Association from the list of memberships, owing to that organization’s being a bunch of “liberal busybodies.” Ultimately, Wagner got his way. He's been pleased as punch ever since.

For this round, Wagner wanted more info concerning “4Faculty," an organization that the Saddleback Academic Senate seeks to join. Nobody in the room seemed to know anything aboutt 4Faculty (Ac. Senate Prez Bob C had stepped out of the room.)

In the end, the board unanimously approved the list of memberships. (Still, I don’t get it. If the ALA is a problem, why isn’t the MLA a problem, too? The MLA bodies are pretty busy, too. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Item 28 concerned “personnel actions” recommended by the Chancellor, including a $20,000 raise for Mr. Goo. Evidently, the board was not pleased by that recommendation, and so it was essentially “pulled” before discussion. (See blog above.)

Also pulled was section G, the “change of title” for Bob King, currently the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. The recommendation was that King’s title would be changed to "VC of Human Resources and General Counsel.” Obviously, the change would involve new duties and a bump in pay.

Well, evidently, the board didn’t like that suggestion either, so they pulled the item.

Don’t worry, Bob, you’ve still got that "Nanny” gig.

The board separately discussed 28F, which recommended approval of a paid leave of absence for Bill Hewitt—so that he can serve as President of the FACCC.

Evidently, trustee Fuentes’ “conscience” required that he abstain from voting on that item, for, he said, he opposed using taxpayer money to support a “private organization.” Approving this item, he said, amounted to a “gift of public funds.”

Others disagreed. The item was approved.

Item 31 was informational only. It concerned “basic aid.”

Williams took the opportunity to suggest that the district should abandon its existing funding model, according to which the two colleges are funded as though the district were on “program based funding.” (Basic aid funding provides us with much more than what would be provided by program based funding, since the former is keyed to local property taxes, and property values in OC are very high.)

Williams asserted that we are a “wealthy district” and yet the colleges are being forced to make painful cuts. We’re here to “support the colleges,” he said. And yet we’re “scrimping.”

Lang defended the existing model. He argued that, in the end, the district needs to make difficult judgments about balancing “infrastructure” and “current operating needs” with “other” needs (new construction, etc.). “We’ve done a pretty good job doing that,” he said.

Jay chimed in to agree with Williams. “IVC is really hurting,” he said.

After a while, Fuentes, a staunch supporter of the current model, joined the discussion, saying, nastily, that, evidently, when the temperature is over 100 degrees outside, it’s “Christmas in July.” He then seemed to say that our district’s current affluence depends on real estate prices, and, right now, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the fate of OC real estate prices. (Maybe i misunderstood.) I think Fuentes was saying that it is a great and perilous error to count on the basic aid gravy train.


Lang skipped ahead to item 40, which concerned “updating” the current district logo. Tracy Daly had taken the board’s suggestions and developed a somewhat modified and colorized version of the old logo. (See.)

She explained that “we’ve moved the sun to the correct side.” The update has a “dynamic” feel, she said. The trustees had the new logo before them.


Padberg didn’t like it. “There’s a tremendous value in tradition,” she said, implying that tradition means never having to say "it's updated." Evidently, in Nancy's mind, Tracy was supposed to add color and leave everything else the same. Even that wayward sun.

Marcia liked the new logo. She said so.

Padberg countered by saying, “I’ve never seen mountains that are blue.”

Marcia responded by saying, “mountains could look bluish. That’s a possibility.”

During his report, SC Academic Senate President Bob C presented a study concerning reassigned time compensation for senate officers around the state. The upshot: especially in comparison with other large districts, compensation for academic senate officers in our district is extremely low.

In the course of the discussion, Bob (and Wendy) noted that these senate officer positions are getting harder to fill, for they are utterly unattractive.

Wendy noted that she and Claire reckoned that they worked about 45 hours a week on senate business alone. That’s on top of teaching and raising a family.

Wendy also noted that, as the district has moved to more inclusive governance, the work of the senate president has grown. In the meantime, compensation for senate presidents has not.

That was about it.

(See also Tracy's Board meeting highlights.)

BOARD POLICY 4011.6: employment procedures for chancellor

All board policies are available here as pdf files (on the district website)

Adopted: 7-24-06

BOARD POLICY 4011.6

SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY PERSONNEL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

EMPLOYMENT PROCEDURES FOR CHANCELLOR

SECTION I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Preface: The hiring of a highly qualified Chancellor is essential to the mission of the South Orange County Community College District. Therefore, the governing board, with input through this process from administration, faculty and staff, has the responsibility to select a highly qualified Chancellor. The Office of Human Resources shall ensure that every aspect of the hiring process is implemented appropriately.

2. Scope: This policy applies to the recruitment and hiring process for Chancellor.

3. Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Statement: The South Orange County Community College District shall recruit, hire, and promote in all job titles without regard to ethnic group identification, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, age, medical condition, marital status, military service, sexual orientation, or any other basis protected by law. The District shall comply with the Board of Governors regulations relating to equal employment opportunity.

4. Definitions:

• Board: The Board of Trustees of the South Orange County Community College District.

• Board Designee: The Board of Trustees may elect to appoint an alternate designee to oversee the hiring process.

• Chair: Chair of the Hiring Committee.

• Chancellor: The Chancellor of the South Orange County Community College District. The policy also refers to Chancellor during the process, meaning the current, interim or acting Chancellor.

• Committee: The Hiring Committee, also known as the Search Committee.

• District: The South Orange County Community College District.

• EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity.

• HR Specialist: Human Resources Specialist, Hiring Compliance Officer and EEO representative assigned to the job opening.

• OHR: Office of Human Resources.

• SOCCCD: The South Orange County Community College District.

• Vice Chancellor: Vice Chancellor, Human Resources, or designee

5. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statements: The South Orange County Community College District Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statements apply to this process.

6. Compliance: This policy is intended to comply fully and be interpreted in a manner consistent with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Board of Governor’s equal employment opportunity regulations. Any provision of this policy that directly conflicts with any applicable state or federal law or regulation may be disregarded and a procedure that complies with the superseding authority shall be developed by the Chancellor and substituted until such time as the Board may adopt a formal amendment to this policy.

7. Oversight: Normally, the current, acting or interim Chancellor will provide oversight of the hiring process. However, the Board may appoint an alternate designee, as appropriate, to insure avoidance of any conflict of interest. The Chancellor or Board designee, with the assistance of the OHR, oversees the implementation of the hiring process and the activities of the hiring committees as they exercise their duties, specifically to ensure that actions of hiring committees are consistent with both the written stipulations and the intentions of this policy. It is the responsibility of the Chancellor or Board designee, to ensure the integrity of the hiring process established by this policy. If, in the judgment of the Chancellor or Board designee, the integrity of the process described herein has been substantially violated or abused, the Chancellor or Board designee, may order that the process be suspended, pending determination of an appropriate action in consultation with the Office of the Human Resources and the Board President.

8. Interpretation: Technical questions and minor problems will ordinarily be resolved by the HR Specialist in consultation with the OHR. In the event that a question of the procedural interpretation of this policy arises and cannot be resolved by the HR Specialist, the question shall be submitted in writing to the Vice Chancellor, or designee via the HR Specialist. If in the judgment of the HR Specialist, the Chair, the Chancellor or Board designee, a problem of interpretation occurs which threatens the viability or integrity of a Committee’s duties as described herein, all parties shall be immediately notified, and the hiring process shall be suspended pending resolution of the problem. The Chancellor or Board designee, in consultation with OHR, shall attempt to resolve any problem or difference of interpretation of this policy.

9. Exceptions: The Chancellor or Board designee, in consultation with the OHR, may reduce or extend the time period for any step established in this policy. Such exceptions shall be as narrow as possible to address, in a reasonable manner, the unusual circumstances posed. In the event of such an alteration to the process as described herein, the Chancellor or Board designee will notify the OHR in writing, stating the unusual circumstances necessitating the extension or exception.

SECTION II: RECRUITMENT

1. When the need for hiring a new Chancellor is determined and recommended by the Board of Trustees, and upon the Board’s approval, a Request to Announce Form is completed and submitted to the Office of Human Resources.

2. The Board of Trustees may consider employment of a professional consultant to assist with the Chancellor search process.

3. Job Announcement Content: The job announcement will determine the screening criteria for review of applicant files. Care must be taken to ensure accurate and job-related criteria. It shall contain:

a. Opening and closing dates

b. Summary of duties and responsibilities

c. Minimum qualifications

d. Desirable qualifications

e. Application requirements and procedures

f. Special testing, if applicable

g. Submission of materials, if required

h. EEO Statement

4. All openings will be advertised through the Office of Human Resources.

5. As a position is opened, it will be announced by the Office of Human Resources with sufficient lead-time to advertise the position. This should normally be a minimum of ten weeks or 50 working days, unless otherwise requested by the Chancellor.

6. Applications, resumes, and other required materials are accepted only by the Office of Human Resources.

7. Announcement brochures will be distributed to appropriate professional sources.

SECTION III: APPLICATION PROCESS

1. Submission: Applications, resumes, and other required materials are accepted only by the OHR via the District’s online employment site.

2. Application Period: Applications may be submitted for a set period of time or “until filled.” In the case where a position is “open until filled,” screening may not begin until at least 30 working days after advertising has appeared in some public forum.

In the case where a position is “open until filled,” applications submitted less than two working days prior to the beginning of the screening process may be excluded from consideration.

3. Search Extension: The recruitment period will be extended when the applicant pool has fewer than five minimally qualified applications, unless the OHR, the Chancellor or Board designee and Board President agree to forward the pool.

SECTION IV: SEARCH COMMITTEE

The Chancellor or Board designee will appoint the Search Committee according to the following criteria: The Search Committee shall consist of no more than eleven and no less than seven voting members. A majority of the appointees to the Search Committee will be administrators and managers.

a. The Chancellor or Board designee will select six administrators and managers. The Chancellor or Board designee also will appoint the Search Committee Chair

b. Each Academic Senate will select one faculty member

c. The South Orange County Community College District Faculty Association will select one faculty member

d. The California School Employees Association Chapter 586 (“CSEA”) will select one classified employee

e. The Police Officers Association (“POA”) will select one of its members

1. Terminate Process: The Chancellor or Board designee may terminate the process if, in his or her judgment, the formation of the Committee has violated the integrity of the hiring process.

2. EEO Representative: The EEO Representative shall be appointed by the Vice Chancellor or designee, and may be replaced as necessary by another qualified staff member. Only a trained staff member may serve as an EEO representative.

3. Orientation: The HR Specialist will conduct an orientation meeting to explain roles, duties, expectations, timelines, and the rating process to the Committee members. At this time, the Committee will agree on the schedule. All members must also sign a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statement. All HR forms must be completed in ink.

4. Relative Weights: At the Orientation, the Committee will assign the value to be given to the application and to the interview components. Neither the screening nor the interview may be weighted less than 30 percent each.

5. Duration: At the Orientation, the Committee will determine the length of the interview.

6. Criteria: The Committee shall establish in writing the criteria to be used in screening the applications and selecting the applicants to be interviewed. The screening criteria shall be job related, and based on the position description and the District hiring policy.

7. Interview Questions: All questions and other requirements must be kept confidential throughout the process. The Committee will develop and forward to OHR for approval a list of interview questions to be asked of each candidate, as well as any exercise, presentation, or other requirement. The list of questions and requirements will be provided to OHR at least five business days prior to the first scheduled interview. All questions and other requirements shall be job-related and composed with the intent of evaluating the candidate’s knowledge and abilities in relation to the minimum and desirable qualifications as published in the formal job announcement. OHR may provide sample questions at the request of the Chair for the consideration of the Committee. The list of questions and other requirements as described above must be approved by a majority vote of the Committee. The Vice Chancellor or designee reviews all Committee approved questions and other requirements if applicable to ensure compliance with District policies and State and Federal laws and regulations, and must approve all interview questions and other requirements prior to the interview. The Vice Chancellor or designee may make editorial changes; however, if a particular question is deemed by the Vice Chancellor or designee to be in need of substantive changes, these changes will be made in consultation with the Chair or designated discipline expert. The Chair or designee will be provided with the OHR-approved list of questions and other requirements if applicable one (1) business day before the interview.

8. Participation: Committee members are expected to be available as necessary for Committee functions, to fully participate in all required meetings and related Committee responsibilities, and to complete screening functions in a timely manner. Any member who fails to complete screening in a timely manner, or who misses Committee meetings, may be subject to removal by the Chancellor or Board designee after consultation with the Chair and the OHR. The scores or ratings of a Committee member who withdraws prematurely or is removed will not be counted in the uncompleted phase or section of the process.

9. Minimum Membership: In the event that the Committee membership falls below the required minimum number of members, the Chancellor or Board designee, after discussion with the OHR, shall determine whether to restart the hiring process, appoint a replacement Committee member, or continue the hiring process with fewer than the minimum number of committee members.

SECTION V: SCREENING PROCESS

1. Determination of Application Completeness: The OHR will screen all applicants for minimum qualifications as specified in the official announcement for that position before submission to the Committee, thereby determining applicants who will be paper screened and eligible for interviewing. The Search Committee Chair has the option to be involved in the minimum qualification screening process.

2. Review of Application: The review of application and resumes is done online on the District’s employment site on an individual basis by each committee member.

3. Evaluation of Application Materials (Screening): The Committee may not begin to review applications until the appropriate application period has elapsed. At the Orientation meeting, the Committee in consultation with the HR Specialist shall specify the time(s) and location(s) when application materials shall be available. During the screening process, Committee members may not remove the files or their contents, copy or alter any material contained in the files, or append comments or marks. Notes on the candidates must be kept in the Committee member’s evaluation file, which will be maintained by the OHR.

4. Scoring: Each application shall receive an independent evaluation according to job-related criteria by each member of the Committee. The Committee members shall rate each applicant on the appropriate forms provided by the OHR.

5. Recommendation of Candidates for Interview: Using a final ranked list, without names, of candidates by score, the HR Specialist and the Chair will meet to determine the lowest score to qualify for an interview. On the basis of the lowest qualifying score, the OHR shall assemble a list of candidates to be interviewed.

6. Interview Scheduling: The OHR shall schedule selected candidates for a first-level interview, according to the schedule adopted by the Committee, giving them at least five business days notice of the interview. Exceptions to the five-day notice may be granted by the Vice Chancellor or designee.

7. Travel Reimbursement: Reimbursement claims for over 300 miles must be submitted no later than 30 days after the interview. Any reimbursement claim is limited to standard District reimbursement guidelines and shall not exceed $1500.

SECTION VI: INTERVIEW PROCESS

1. Materials: At the beginning of each interview meeting, the applicant’s files shall be made available to the Committee, along with the appropriate OHR forms. Each member of the Committee will receive a schedule of interviews, and the interview questions.

2. Site: The Chair will inform the HR Specialist of any special interview needs. After consultation with the Chair, the HR Specialist will make the arrangements for the interview location.

3. Set Time: Each applicant shall be afforded the opportunity to have an interview of approximately equal length.

4. Search Committee Names: Each candidate will be provided with a list of the names and titles of the Search Committee just prior to the interview.

5. Review of Interview Questions: Candidates will have the opportunity to review the interview questions 15 minutes in advance of their interview. All questions must be job-related. Answers to core questions should reveal attitudes towards the job, appropriateness of education and experience, competency in the field, extent of responsibility and philosophical orientation with respect to the functions involved.

6. Writing Sample: The candidate will be asked to provide a writing sample in response to a question provided to the candidate by the Search Committee before the interview.

7. Questions: Each candidate will be asked the same interview questions in the same order. During the interview, follow-up questions may be asked to clarify or further investigate a response given by a candidate. If, in the judgment of the HR Specialist, a follow-up question violates standards of non-discrimination, the HR Specialist will direct the candidate to disregard the question. Follow-up questions should be kept to a minimum to maintain consistent standards of candidate evaluation throughout the interview process. Any question by the candidate pertaining to conditions of employment, such as salary, benefits, or policy, must be referred to the OHR.

8. Group Discussion: Committee members shall be given an opportunity to discuss each applicant and only that applicant after each interview. Comprehensive discussion shall not take place until after all interviews are completed. No discussion of any candidate may take place unless the HR Specialist and all committee members are present. Committee members are encouraged to discuss candidates’ fulfillment of job-related criteria in a candid and thorough manner, but shall not discuss specific numeric scores to be given to any candidate. The HR Specialist shall be responsible for ensuring that discussion is limited to job-related criteria.

9. Score: Each Committee member is responsible for exercising his or her independent judgment in rating each candidate. Following the Committee’s discussion of the candidates, each committee member shall rate independently each candidate using the appropriate form provided by the OHR. At the conclusion of the interviews and any subsequent discussion, each member of the Committee shall enter a final interview score for each candidate, and then calculate the final total score from the appropriately weighted screening and interview scores. The OHR will verify and compile final scores for all candidates.

10. Selection of Finalists: After the conclusion of interviews, the Chair and the HR Specialist shall assemble a ranked list of candidates and their final scores. Using this list, the Committee will determine the lowest score to qualify as a preliminary finalist for a second level interview. The committee shall provide job related reason why a candidate interviewed is not forwarded to the second level for final interviews. The committee shall forward at least three (3) finalists for second level interview.

SECTION VII: REFERENCE CHECKS

1. Timing: Official reference checks, in accordance with the OHR Guidelines, will be performed prior to the submission of the recommended candidates to the Chancellor for second-level interviews.

2. Required Professional References: Each applicant will be asked to provide at least three references, preferably from the following categories:

• Current supervisor(s);

• Previous supervisor (from the past five years);

• Colleague/co-worker who can address professional competency and appropriate practical skills;

• Other professional references

If the individual provided as a reference is unavailable, or if the candidate fails to provide sufficient references, the OHR, in consultation with the Chair, may request additional references from the candidate.

3. Reference Contacts: The Vice Chancellor, in conjunction with the Chair, will conduct the reference checks and record the information on the appropriate OHR form. The HR Specialist will verify all data on the application. Each reference for each finalist shall be asked the same questions about that finalist, and shall be asked whether he or she can recommend the finalist in question without reservation, and, if not, to specify these reservations. The reference checker(s) shall ask no question that is impermissible under applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, or that seeks information unrelated to the qualifications for the position. The reference checker(s) shall not provide any derogatory or confidential information about the finalist, and shall not provide with any assessment of the quality of the finalist’s qualifications.

SECTION VIII: SECOND-LEVEL INTERVIEW

1. Finalists: The Board of Trustees shall be provided an unranked list of finalists by the Chair, and a report of the final scores for all candidates including job related reason(s) for not forwarding candidates interviewed.

2. Second-level Interview: The Board of Trustees will interview the finalists for the position. The Board may invite the Chancellor or Board designee to participate in the interview process.

3. Second-level Interview Schedule: Finalists shall be given at least five (5) business days notice of the interview.

4. Content: The Board may ask any job-related questions, may ask follow-up questions, and may provide clarification of ambiguous or unclear questions. The Vice Chancellor or designee must review any questions, exercises or other requirements prior to the interview to ensure compliance with district policies and State and Federal laws and regulations.

5. Substantially Similar Interviews: Although variations are permitted throughout the interview process, the Board shall give each candidate a substantially similar interview of approximately the same duration, involving the same segments and exercises.

6. Additional Interviews: After completing this initial round of second level interviews, the Board of Trustees has the authority to interview additional candidates from the first level interview pool in the order of the next highest Search Committee rankings.

7. Consultation: The Board may consult with the Chair of the committee after the second-level interviews and before any offer of employment is made.

8. Termination of Search: After the completion of all second level interviews, the Board of Trustees may decide to stop the process, at which point the position would be reopened.

9. Board Reference Checks: Following candidate interviews, the Board of Trustees may make further job-related reference checks. The Board may conduct site visits.

10. Recommendation for Appointment: Upon selection of the finalist by the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor or Board designee will submit the recommendation to the Office of Human Resources for the offer of employment and presentation to the Board for final approval.

11. Travel Reimbursement: Reimbursement claims for over 300 miles must be submitted no later than 30 days after the interview. Any reimbursement claim is limited to standard District reimbursement guidelines and shall not exceed $1500.

Capo Unified & the South Orange County Community College District: if it’s Brown, flush it

It just gets worse and worse.

In this morning’s OC Register, we learn that the Capo Unified School District trustees held closed sessions in which they discussed, among other things, how to silence board critics.

Further, despite the Brown Act, which forbids closed session discussion of all but a few topics, such as employee evaluations, the board discussed various other topics, such as tax increases and how to handle troublesome parents.

Here are some excerpts from the article (Capo issues discussed secretly):

Capistrano school trustees over the years secretly discussed muzzling board critics, increasing taxes and other business that open-meeting experts say should have been done in public.

The discussions took place during twice-yearly, closed-door meetings that were supposed to be dedicated to Superintendent James Fleming's performance review. However, agendas and meeting minutes obtained by The Orange County Register show that numerous discussions went far beyond the scope of employee evaluations and potentially violated the Brown Act.
…..
Confidential minutes from a July 30, 2005, closed session tell [the]…story. They show that the trustees discussed limiting the time that recall supporter and longtime critic Ron Lackey would be allowed to talk at meetings.

"In general Board members want to start to limit Ron Lackey and the amount of items he can address," said the minutes, written by Heather Wheeler, manager of board office operations.

According to the minutes, trustee Sheila Benecke said, "If we are going to permit Ron Lackey to speak to numerous items on the agenda, do not list them individually in the minutes."
…..
The document also shows that the trustees discussed 31 items that day that were outside the scope of Fleming's evaluation [the sole agendized item], such as how to handle the parent of a special education student.
…..
Fleming, in a statement issued by a district spokeswoman, said the items did not violate the Brown Act because they were part of his evaluation and job objectives….

Well, once again, to anyone who has followed the SOCCCD saga, this sure does sound familiar.

Back in 1997, the SOCCCD board met in closed session to discuss, among other things, the appointment of interim President of Irvine Valley College (they appointed Raghu Mathur, based on a thin petition that Mathur had himself circulated and the signatories of which were kept “anonymous.”) The item was not agendized, nor is it a permissible closed-session topic.

Three months later, the board held another closed session, this time to discuss—you guessed it!—a “personnel” action. In fact, they voted on a massive reorganization of the district, one involving the elimination of “School Chairs” at IVC and substitution of them with Saddleback College deans.

I found the following account in an old Dissent:

The Board Majority [starting in December, 1996, the SOCCCD BM included Steve Frogue, John Williams, Dorothy Fortune, and Teddi Lorch] has a long history of violations of the Brown Act, starting with its first meeting (12/16/96) in which, during a closed session, it discussed and voted upon a reduction of reassigned time for academic senate officers—not a permitted closed session topic—without agendizing the matter.

After the board appointed Raghu Mathur interim president of IVC in a closed session in April—the action was unagendized and the public was thus not allowed an opportunity to comment—a group of faculty and community members demanded a "cure," which the board ignored; this ultimately led to a decision, by OC Superior Court Judge MacDonald, that voided Mathur's appointment and decisions. (This has been dubbed, by the district, Bauer I.)

Then, in July, the board reorganized the district in closed session, agendizing the matter deceptively as a "personnel" action, thereby robbing the public of an opportunity to comment on the action, which, in any case, is not among actions that may be taken in closed session.

Then, prior to the September '97 board meeting, trustees engaged in secret serial meetings regarding a "deal" promoted by Board Majoritarian John Williams (see WILLIAMS). Each of these violations (and others, including a closed session address by Vishwas More) led OC Superior Court Judge Tully Seymour to write of the board's "persistent and defiant misconduct" relative to the Brown Act. The petitioner of Bauer II was awarded $98,000 in attorneys fees, though Seymour's judgment, and the fees, are being appealed. [Ultimately, essentially the district lost the appeal.]

The story doesn’t end there. The litigation discussed above has made the SOCCCD board much more careful about Brown Act violations, but it’s pretty clear that it has continued to play fast and loose with the rules.

For instance, back on September 27, we reported as follows:

HERE WE GO AGAIN:

It appears that the Board of Secrecy is back, only now it is led by Mr. Bean (i.e., Board Pesident Dave Lang). On September 13, the Board scheduled a special closed session of the BOT. The agenda listed one item: an “Employee evaluation of Performance”—an evaluation of the Chancellor. (See graphic below.)

That was odd. As you know, very recently, the chancellor was given a raise (it was in part retroactive) and a new contract. He now pulls down a quarter million dollars a year (if you include the car allowance and benefits), making him among the highest paid Chancellors in the system.


Now, it is clear that, during this very long meeting, held in the “Catalina Room” of the Laguna Hills Marriott (in Dana Point), other matters were discussed than Mathur’s performance. I have it on good authority that the board also discussed some of the major issues cited by the accrediting agency in its reports of February: the “plague of despair,” the problem of delineating roles and responsibilities, and so on. But, again, none of that was on the agenda. Further, as far as I know, discussions of the kind occasioned by the Accrediting reports are not among the items that, by law, may be discussed in closed session.

I checked the district’s website under the heading “Governing Board.” There, one finds a list that includes

Board Meeting Schedule
Board Meeting Agendas
Archived Board Meeting Highlights

Nothing on the website indicates to Joe Public, or to me, that a special meeting occurred at all. I looked everywhere on the site: nothing. --END OF SEPT. 27 BLOG The Board of secrecy

Ultimately, it became obvious that the board had violated the Brown Act. This prompted IVC Academic Senate President Wendy Gabriella, acting as a private citizen, to demand a "cure" of the Brown Act violation(s).

In response, the board reluctantly and peevishly "cured" their error by redoing, and doing legally, their illegal secret September action. See Chunk's 24 hour updatery (section 2).

Compton gives it up; Fleming caught in salary spin; Mathur still at large

Perhaps you missed it—I know I did. On Tuesday, the Times reported that Compton Community College has abandoned its fight to reverse its loss of accreditation from WASC/ACCJC. The college will be taken over by El Camino. See School Takes Partner in Deal.

This morning’s OC Register reports the latest page of the Capo Unified School District story. It turns out that embattled but retiring CUSD Superintendent James Fleming has been understating his pay to reporters, et al. (See Fleming understated pay package.)

According to the Reg,

Fleming's pay, perks and benefits in 2004-05 amounted to $348,307 – much more than any other district superintendent or city manager in Orange County.

But Fleming's staff responded to a Register survey of public officials by reporting his total compensation at $283,541, still higher than all but one county government executive.

Makes you wonder. How much is Chancellor Mathur really making? Is it just the measly Quarter Mill, or are there hidden perks? Inquiring minds wanna know.

And while we're on the subject, just how much does the district pay to support John Williams' junketeering?

Maybe it's time for a public record request.

What do you think?

Taj Mahal

In the latest chapter in the wacky Capistrano Unified School District saga, beleaguered superintendent James Fleming has announced his resignation, pleasing parents who have sought to fire Fleming and recall his bosses, the CUSD board of trustees.

Long before the latest round of controversy concerning the existence of an “enemies list”—an illegally obtained list of parents who participated in a failed trustee recall attempt—parents were angered by such district actions as construction of an opulent administration building:

Fleming, who had strained relations with a host of elected city officials throughout South County, became the focal point of intense criticism after moving forward last year with plans to build a 126,000-square-foot administration building at a cost of $38 million.

The decision outraged parents who termed the building a "Taj Mahal" and protested the lack of renovation on many of the district's aging school facilities. In April 2005, they responded by mounting a recall campaign targeting all seven school district trustees. (Fleming announces retirement plans—OC Reg)

Garsh, that sounds awful familiar.

Yesterday, a friend visited me at IVC and commented that the campus has become a “mess” over the last decade. “Physically, this end of campus is just falling apart,” he said.

For many years, we’ve been hearing such complaints throughout the district. Nevertheless, a few years ago, the SOCCCD board moved forward with the construction of a fabulous new administration complex, located in the new ($16 million) Health Sciences Building at Saddleback College.


You oughta take a look at the Chancellor and the trustees' new digs. Fabulous!

—Well, actually, you can't see 'em cuz you won't get past the sentry, unless, of course, you've got an invite or you're on the OC GOP Central Committee.

According to the district’s “Report to the Community,” “the most ambitious construction, expansion, renovation and upgrade initiatives in the 38 year history of South Orange County Community College District are currently underway. “

Could be. Here at IVC, they've been busily constructing the new Performing Arts Center and whatnot.

But if trustees had any sense (integrity?), they’d concentrate on fixing our rotting old buildings—our hideous bathrooms, moldy vents, stained carpets, and crumbling walls—before launching into this “personal monument” initiative.

Doncha think?

See also Beleaguered Schools Chief Quitting.

Unpopular Mathurian visitations

Recently, a friend called with a delicious, if minor, tale. Evidently, there is a club of classified retirees at Saddleback College. The organization has a president, and this president took it upon himself to invite Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur to the club's next meeting.

It is easy to imagine how that happened. Raghu loves nothing more than to play the visiting VIP.

According to my friend (who got her info, evidently, from a member of the club), when word of the President's Mathurian invitation got out, many members became upset and communicated among themselves (or to the president?) that they would not be attending any meeting featuring Mathur.

The story reminds me of the beginning of Raghu's Reign of Error. As you know, Raghu, a chemistry instructor, was appointed IVC's interim President in April of 1997. A month earlier, in response to President Larios' departure, the board had decided to have then-Chancellor Lombardi extend his duties to IVC. But Raghu and the old corrupt union engineered a change--one that proved to be illegal, or so said the OC Superior Court. (I was among the petitioners of that suit.)

One of the first things Raghu did as President was to insist on meeting with each of the Schools of IVC. Much of the faculty already viewed Mathur's appointment as illegitimate. After all, Raghu had had no full-time administrative experience. How was the fellow even remotely qualified? Further, he was by then a notorious character on campus, a fellow known for his connivery, dishonesty, and pathological self-importance--some would say, "narcissism."

Hell, even his colleague Glenn Roquemore, then a geology instructor in Raghu's school, recognized Raghu's viciousness. In the early months of 1997, Glenn was working with administrator Pam Deegan to have Mathur removed as chair of the School of Physical Sciences and Technologies, a quasi-administrative position that Raghu held onto by any means necessary.

Glenn, evidently, had his own administrative ambitions, and Mathur was standing (um, sitting) in the way.

So the impending Mathurian Visitation inspired much squirmage, uncertainty, and consternation.

By the time Raghu scheduled a meeting with Humanities & Languages, he had already visited other schools, and there were reports that, at these meetings, he had insisted on going around the room shaking hands with each and every instructor.


"Good Lord," we said. What could be worse than having to stand there shaking hands with this Philistine? --This indefatigable schemer who had been censured for lying and circumventing process by IVC's Instructional Council? --This unprincipled lout whose behavior--among other sins, he had violated a student's privacy by distributing her transcripts--led to a formal reprimand by President Larios? --This grasping brownnoser who, despite his greed (he was the King of excessive reassigned time/overload) and incompetence (you should have seen the mess he made of "Tech Prep"), manifested an inexplicable and inveterate conviction that he was the most talented and deserving hunk of administrative talent the world has ever seen?

Anyone who disagreed was prompty charged, by Raghu, with racism. (Go to end of That finger.)

Well, when the big day arrived, we all showed up and sat there listening to Mathur's insufferable speech about the new regime. Then, sure enough, he went around the room, shaking hands, slowly.

Some of us simply refused to shake his hand. He handled that well. But eventually he got to one of the more senior members of the school, Dale, a widely respected fellow who had himself once served as Interim President. When Raghu got to Dale, Dale reached out his hand and held Raghu's.

There was a pause. Time froze. What was going on?

Dale had decided to counter Raghu's idiotic and offensive "handshake" gambit with a gesture of his own. When Raghu extended his hand, Dale held it and would not let go of it. He looked Raghu straight in the eye.

I do believe that the Gooster panicked a bit. Raghu is the kind of guy who can dish it out all right, but he can't take it, that's for sure. He's a fat toad on his big mushroom, but as soon as you bump him, he freaks and scatters with zero grace and dignity, pissing and spitting in all directions.

Eventually, of course, he recovers; he then adds your name to his Enemies List. In permanent ink.

So Raghu panicked a bit. Dale looked him in the eye. He said something pleasant but meaningful, I forget what. Raghu squirmed, not knowing what to do. He eventually extricated himself and scurried away, attempting to get the unpleasantness behind him.

That was the last time he tried his handshake gimmick, at least with the School of H & L.

But Raghu's got a big bag of tricks. (He's also got a big bag of awards, which he used to pull out and explain at every opportunity.) For a time, Raghu had a "servant" campaign. He'd show up everywhere with a terry cloth towel draped over his arm. Upon it was written, "How may I serve you?" Just imagine.

Everyone snickered. Especially classified employees.

(No one is less servant-like than the lordly Raghu.)

For a while, Raghu would go to meetings, forcing all in attendance to clap exactly once for everything and everybody that, in his mind, deserved clappage. (Some speculated that Raghu was offended that some persons received more clappage than others [i.e., than he]. The solution? Everyone gets just one.)

He actually gave this odd practice a name. He called it the "Orange County Clap," evidently unaware of the word's other meaning. (Raghu's infamous "clap" and "poinsettia" episodes)

Then there was the time Raghu promoted a list of allegedly morale-boosting activities, including this: each employee should draw a hand on a piece of paper. Using that "hand," he should then give himself "a pat on the back." (Raghu's wildfires of inanity)

"Surely," we said, "the fellow is joking!"

But no.

(At Mathur's last visitation of the School of H&L [last Fall], four faculty showed up.)

The goo thickens

Well, this morning, the Times (Registrar’s act deepens school furor) is playing catch-up re the wacky Capistrano school district story.

On Monday, the OC Reg reported that, according to Capistrano’s former spokesman, the district’s superintendent secured a list of parents who participated in an effort to recall district trustees. (For the Reg's update, see Parents protest recall lists. The Reg focuses on last night's board meeting.)

Following the Reg, the Times today reports that the Registrar's Office apparently broke the law in releasing the names.

But it gets better! According to this morning's Times, Capistrano's former PR guy also says that the Supe had an "informant" who had infiltrated the recall campaign!

Here are some excerpts:

An affluent south Orange County school district consumed by a drive to recall all its trustees was swept into deeper controversy this week when a county official admitted that the registrar of voters office had improperly let two school officials view the names of people who signed the recall petitions.

The names, which are confidential by state law, included parents and teachers in the Capistrano Unified School District, a sprawling and academically distinguished district stretching from San Clemente to Mission Viejo.
.....
Parents who organized the recall drive against the seven trustees said the registrar's action called into question the integrity of his office. They also have been incensed by allegations that school district officials kept lists of the names of parents who supported the recall.
…..
[P]arents said they were angered and astonished that the district reportedly kept a spreadsheet with the names of 150 people who backed the recall effort. Although the superintendent has denied any knowledge of the spreadsheet, the district's former spokesman said he saw it and was asked to keep it secret.
.....
Former district spokesman David Smollar, who resigned in late May, said Supt. James A. Fleming ordered him to withhold three versions of a spreadsheet list containing the names of parents, their e-mail addresses and the schools their children attend.

"I told him if anyone found out about the list, it would be an absolute embarrassment," Smollar said. "Fleming ordered me not to give it out [and] I complied. I didn't have a death wish to be fired."

He said he was also asked to block a public records request for a memo by the district security director on talks with an informant who had infiltrated the recall campaign. The superintendent "was more upset about releasing that than the spreadsheet list," Smollar said. "His mindset is to get all the background, all the ammo you can on people. He's a street fighter."
…..
Smollar said Fleming had asked him to go to the registrar's office in the first place, to "take notes of interest."

"Fleming took the sheet, smiled and placed it in his to-discuss-with-trustees box," Smollar said.
…..
"I quit because I didn't believe I was being told the truth as a spokesperson by the superintendent," he said. "I was tired of continual lies he told to me that I passed to the public."…. [Boldface added.]

Well, I don’t wanna beat a dead horse, but this sure does remind us here at Dissent of Raghu "Mr. Goo" Mathur, the Chancellor of the SOCCCD.

Especially the part about the PR guy quitting because his boss is a liar.

Perhaps some of you will recall this story:

9/25/98

IRVINE VALLEY SPOKESWOMAN QUITS

On the job a month, she says she was pressured to present a false view of the college.

By KIMBERLY KINDY
The Orange County Register

Irvine Valley College’s new spokeswoman has left after just one month, saying she was asked to present the public with a view of the embattled college that was tantamount to lying.

Bevin Zandvliet said she repeatedly asked college President Raghu Mathur for information about campus protests, lawsuits aimed at the administration, and controversy over the school’s accreditation, but she was rebuffed.

“I was told that there were some things I was not to focus on,” she said. “From my own research, old files and press clippings I got a picture of an administration that was doing some things that I don’t think I could represent without violating my own ethics.”
…..
“People are walking on eggshells around there [IVC],” she said. “He said he has an open-door policy and that he believes in communication, but I didn’t see it.”

No doubt Capistrano's supe will soon lose his job. But Raghu was rewarded for his multifaceted unethical conduct (keeping secret files on faculty critics, distributing a student's transcripts, sneaking into the Chancellor's back door and then lying about it, whatnot). Not only was he made Chancellor, he received valuable cash prizes, namely, a quarter million dollar salary.

See also Gila's CUSD ENEMIES LIST 7/10 blog on Orange Juice (CUSD Enemies List) for one insider's perspective. Check out the comments, too, though some seem to be coming from way out in left field.

MORE fun summer reading!

Wanna learn about Roy Bauer's dastardly "threats"?

Wanna know how the district's lawyer resorted to intimidation?

Can't remember who said, "You f*cking a**hole"?

Ever wonder whether beheading counts as "maiming"?

YOU'RE IN LUCK. I've added two transcripts to the archives, and, especially if you know the players and events of our district's sorry saga, then you'll definitely wanna read 'em!

It's a goshdarn stroll down memory lane! Sherry! Woody! Fear! Loathing! MAIMAGE!


Go ahead. Click on the two links below. Consider yourself threatened, or, at least, intimidated!

Go to:

1. Bauer's court victory; TRANSCRIPTS

--in which Judge Feess judges that, in an effort to stifle dissent and criticism, the district and chancellor stretched and twisted policies when it accused Dissent publisher Roy Bauer of "discriminating" against Raghu and "threatening" him with two-ton slabs of granite!

2. Lisa's deposition: a strategy of harassment; TRANSCRIPTS

--in which district lawyer Dave Larsen attempts to intimidate Dissent publisher Roy Bauer's office mate by asking her to reveal her politics and her memories of Clock Tower incidents and bearded men and postal goings and Christian-right political organizations!


NOTE: back in 1998, the above Dissent "downsizers" graphic (see) was cited by the district as evidence of Bauer's desire to do violence. I guess they figured that Bauer keeps a huge shotgun in his garage. Idjits.

The above "backdoor Gooster" graphic accompanied Dissent's report of Mathur's infamous enemies list. Obviously, our point was that Raghu wanted to hurt his enemies, but Raghu insisted that it was evidence that Bauer wanted to "maim" him. (Read especially Lisa's deposition.)

Fun summer reading

Mathur's Sept. 1999 deposition

While writing the blog below ("Let there be wooage," earlier this morning), I added something to the archive. It is a transcript of RAGHU MATHUR's famous deposition in connection with my First Amendment lawsuit.

The deposition, which features my attorney (Carol Sobel), the district's attorney (Dave Larsen), and, of course, Mathur, is very long, but I've added section headings, so you can skip around (see below).

Those who know or know of Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur will, I believe, be amused by his remarks.

Some highlights:

• Raghu explains that he keeps what amount to secret files on IVC faculty. According to the Ed Code, the district must maintain a single file per employee, the contents of which are to made clear to the employee. Mathur acknowledges that he keeps yet another file--the contents of which, evidently, are not disclosed.

• Raghu claims to have received about a dozen threats--letters, emails, voicemail--(as per usual, he plays the "race" card) stretching back to about 1990.

Under aggressive questioning, he acknowledges that he has no documentation of these alleged "threats." Evidently, he has chosen to keep nothing.

But Mathur is a notorious liar. More likely, he just made this all up.

• Raghu names four faculty who, he charges, have been hostile to him and to whom he attributes the "threats." Included among them: Kate Clark (who subsequently served as the State Academic Senate President), Bob Deegan, and Pam Deegan (both respected executive administrators now working in other community college districts).

Raghu's efforts to explain why he views these persons as threatening or how he knows that they are source of threats are often hilarious. He appears to be fond of wild non sequiturs.

• In the course of the deposition, it becomes clear that Mathur is in the habit of making groundless assumptions about his critics.

• At one point, Mathur describes a "threat" he received over the phone; it had, he says, a mysterious "altered" voice!

Mathur's Sept. 1999 deposition

Sections:

1. It begins
2. Renew my subscription to this offensive newsletter
3. Shoe fittage
4. The testimony was MAIM
5. Mathurian logic
6. He meant to do harm to my body
7. “Objective independent” thinking
8. Enemies list: a love story
9. The literary insights of the Three Stooges
10. The curious case of professor R
11. Evidence, please
12. Properly dealing with student complaints
13. The “whore” rumor
14. Mathur’s secret files
15. Raghu’s ever-changing “threats” story
16. Again with the non sequiturs
17. The “case” against Bob Deegan
18. The “case” against Kate Clark
19. Pam’s “hostility”
20. It’s racist if I say it is
21. The mysterious “altered” voice
22. Alleged anti-Asian email
23. My life is in danger
24. “Evidence,” Raghu style
25. Mathur’s inexplicable failure to document the alleged “threats”
26. Seven out of a thousands
27. Mathur violates the contract again
28. Tempers flare; Carol kicks butt