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)
15 comments:
Why does Wagner want to be a trustee in this God-forsaken district? Nobody there likes or respects him. If he's keeping anybody happy, it's his meager rightwing constituency, to whom he occasionally throws red meat. But even those people don't care.
Don Wagner is an enigma. That's it. He's an enigma.
But thanks for clueing me in on his Maynard G. Krebbs period. I had no idea. It suits him. Can't you just see Don off in the corner, playin' his bongos?
Does chasing ambulance come with health insurance? That is why he wants to be trustee.
Wagner pisses off the left wingers evertime he has the opportunity. That alone is why he should be re-elected. What fun it is to watch idiots like you 4:28 voice your "outrage."
Mr. 10:03:
At IVC, Wagner does not piss off the "left wingers." Rather, he pisses off everybody who wants decency and competence to prevail, whether left or right or otherwise.
Start paying attention.
I believe Mr. 10:03 is an old timer in these parts - one wonders what political wing would condone some of his pursuits...but we're really discussing amoral people, right?
Wagner is a pretty decent fellow considering he is an attorney. He certainly doesn't follow the progressive union and faculty sheep mentality and often disagrees with their tiresome and negative diatribe. Yes, he has a tendency to piss some people off, but not everyone. Incidentally, you’re reflecting considerable arrogance when you think you speak for everyone, 10:03.
Dear 2:28:
I don't understand you. I go to many board meetings and I've been close to the operations of governance, at least at IVC. If one had to name one act of opposition against Wagner and his board allies in recent years by faculty, it is the Academic Senates' successful litigation against the district concerning its illegal hiring policy.
Is it "tiresome," "negative," and sheep-like to act to protect the legislatively mandated role of faculty in the development of hiring policies? I don't see how. It is dignified and right and important. Or do you think that the likes of Mathur and Roquemore should be given carte blanche in hiring?
The senates did not want to sue. They asked the board to reverse its decision. What does Wagner do? He says, "so sue us."
Is it any wonder that he is opposed by faculty leadership?
Read the two accreditation reports. Our colleges are functioning badly, especially at the Chancellor and board level. That's why both colleges received essentially a D.
Wagner shares in responsibility for this. And he is unrepentant. And so the faculty oppose him.
Maybe you should start attending board meetings. Become informed!
Wasn't it Wagner who said "So sue us!" when we complained that the hiring policy was illegal - so we did - and the hiring policy was ruled illegal?
4:09 (by-the-way great engine in its time)
Thank you for the tutorial, but winning small and insignificant court victories proves very little in the obvious power struggle in this magnificent district. If you really want to be critical of a board member, why not unload on Milchiker. What in god's name has she ever done in all of the years she’s been taking up space that has any inkling of significance other than ramble on and on about absolute nonsense. At least Wagner stirs things up and causes change. You may not like the change but at least he's doing something to make things happen. In turn, Milchiker meanders aimlessly around the boardroom looking for someone to listen to her.
Incidentally, thank you for your counsel to become informed. You must think very highly of yourself to give out such condescending advice.
Patrick is back!
Defending the indefensible!
Thanks for reading, though.
Now, everybody, do have a great weekend.
And to you, Chunk, a great weekend too. I admire your tenacity.
The reason Wagner wants to be a Trustee is he is waiting till he can move up. However, this argument is mute. He has the implicit backing of the Union. This Friday they endorsed him by letting him proceed with his grandstanding without opposition. At least till someone gets termed out and he can move up. (At that time the union might back him, so they can pass the trash!)
Chuck you complain about the old guard. I was not here during their time but at least they had enough courage to run someone win or lose!
The new crew is only interested in making deals. And this crew is not lead by saddleback but by your very own "Lets make deal Bill". He is an IVC faculty.
I was planning to run against Wagner, but now I have to think about this carefully.
I have to wonder is there anyone out there to do the right thing, if the so called "radical core" of the faculty is not willing to fight. The reason why my party (the republican party) wins is we fight for what we believe in even if it is a losing battle!
The people I interviewed with they talk a good game about fighting evil but they dont like to lose.
One more thing: Lighten up on Padberg! Go up and talk to her. She is not as bad as you think. She does listen, whereas I think you are too easy on Wagner and Fuentes! Those two deserve anything and everything you throw at them.
Mike:
We appreciate your post, but we disagree with much of it.
I'm not a member of the union, nor am I close to its leadership.
Still, I hear things from insiders. The buzz (actually, it's more than buzz) is that you were not selected by the union PAC committee, not because a nefarious "deal" had been cut, but because committee members were unimpressed by your presentation. (There are lots of reasons why that might have happened. I wouldn't take it personally.)
I gather that Don Wagner was another interviewee. Unsurprisingly, the committee listened to what he had to say (and, presumably, considered his record) and then they passed on supporting him, which a bit like the ADL listening to Mel Gibson's blatherings and then passing on making him its man of the year.
I don't understand how you infer that the union's endorsing no one (or running no candidate) constitutes endorsing or supporting Wagner.
Consider this: It is difficulty beating incumbants. You need lots working in your favor to succeed in that: a strong candidate, lots of money, incumbant notoriety, etc. The union does not have all of those advantages re Wagner's seat. For one thing, the public is utterly clueless about Wagner's record, odious though it may be.
I recall being told by UCI's Mark Petracca that Frogue's infamy might actually work in his favor during the next election! At the voting booth, voters, he said, would be clueless, but might remember that they'd heard about this Frogue fella. So they vote for him. Of course, they heard about him because he's a Holocaust denying, conspiracy theory promoting, pancake-breakfast frequenting lunatic!
I would not be surprised if one part of the committee/union's reasoning was that, unless the union had an extremely strong candidate (to run against Wagner), they may as well stay out of the race and save their money for the next election.
I would be very surprised if the IVC instructor to which you refer is pursuing the sort of "deal" that you describe. I have known him for twenty years, and, as far as I can tell, he would be very unlikely to do so.
Concernng the Old Guard: trust me, those people never exhibited courage (or any other virtue), as you suggest. They did exhibit a total lack of decency or principle, as when they decided to back a Holocaust denier or promote their slate of wackos by distributing fraudulent and homophobic fliers. --Or when they declared a union election invalid because its results ousted the Old Guard leadership!
I've had my differences with the New Guard. Some of those differences were enough to send me out the door. I can be funny that way.
But trust me, in terms of decency, the New Guard is infinitely preferable to the Old Guard. I would go as far as to say that the existing leadership, as a whole, is a fundamentally decent (if imperfect) organization, even with Woody as its President.
Chuck it is Mike again.
I will admit that my presentation to the PAC was not very good.
I will admit that I am a political novice,
I will admit that I am not as slick as Wagner.
But tell me chuck who is getting a pass?
I offered to step aside and let a more polished candidate take on Wagner.
They do not have a candidate. Wagner gets to keep his seat without any effort as he did 4 years ago.
My main idea is the following:
Many people talk about changing the system and dissent. Unless one is ready to take action toward change (win or lose) then it is just hot air!
Mike, Alice. I love your spirit.
I do hope you make your position clear to union leadership and that they at least take it seriously.
I think it's a tough call. Maybe I'm wrong.
Post a Comment