“Boards are supposed to be nonpartisan,” he said

"How can you tell?’’

—Dorothy Parker’s retort when informed that President Calvin Coolidge was dead

ACCRED DAY

It was “Accred” day at the two colleges of the South Orange County Community College District. At each college, all morning long, two-person “teams” met with various individuals and groups to get the skinny.

Two years ago, the Accreds (ACCJC/WASC), in the form of much larger teams, visited the colleges. They found problems at the top—trustee micromanagement, administrative instability, inappropriate administrative hiring procedures—plus despair, unclarity about roles, etc.

In the end, essentially, each college received a barely-passing “Accreditation” grade of D.

Despite the district’s declarations to the contrary (Thumbs Up!), each of our colleges was a dunce, sitting in the corner of the room, hoping and waiting to remove that awful hat. But to remove it, each college had to respond to the Accreds’ specific recommendations. (See Accred Action Letter/IVC & Accred Action Letter/Saddleback (pdf files).)

Recently, the colleges submitted reports that assessed progress in that regard. Today’s visits were an effort by the Accreds to compare the reports with the reality at the colleges.

At Irvine Valley College, the Accred duo’s meetings seemed to go well. As far as I know, the meetings at Saddleback College went well, too.

MEETING WITH THE BOARD

At 2:30, after the aforementioned college meetings, the two teams met with the Board of Trustees at the district offices (at Saddleback College). I attended that meeting. Here’s my report.

I arrived in the Chancellor’s Conference Room on time, and the Saddleback team—Raul Rodriguez and Tony Cantu—were already there, along with six of the seven trustees (John Williams was absent). The Irvine Valley team—Deborah Blue and Mary Halverson—were running late. We waited. At about 2:40, it was decided to start the meeting without Blue/Halverson.


RODRIGUEZ’ REMARKS

Evidently speaking for his team, RODRIGUEZ offered some remarks. He started by noting (repeatedly) that he and his colleague were very pleased with progress at Saddleback College. It is clear, he said, that the college President is doing a fine job.

At the district level too, there’s been progress, he said. The administrative hiring issue seems to be resolved; the formation of an advisory counsel is positive. Last spring’s “technical assistance” activities seemed to be helpful.

Still, he said, issues remain. Micromanagement persists. Episodes are less frequent, but they are “not gone.”

Rodriguez said that he and Cantu spent lunch watching videos of the last two board meetings. The behavior that they saw there is not something that they would want anyone to "emulate," he said. Rodriguez spoke about the importance of “civility” and “respect.”

Anyone who had attended those meetings—especially the October meeting—knows that Rodriguez was referring to the conduct of certain trustees, some of whom proceeded sans civility interacting with colleagues and staff. (See Blow by blow.)

Now, during today’s special board meeting, each trustee spoke—with the exception of trustee Don Wagner, who seemed annoyed (but who can tell?), but who remained utterly silent.

Rodriguez said that the board could not really want the kind of national attention they were getting. He referred to the controversy surrounding the board’s decision not to approve a Study Abroad trip to Santander, Spain (Trustee Fuentes objected to Spain’s having withdrawn its troops from Iraq, though other trustees emphasized cost & safety issues). Rodriguez also referred to the controversy surrounding the board’s decision to discontinue the colleges’ memberships in the American Library Association, owing to that organization’s alleged policies and politics. (See Don successfully micromanages.)

“Boards are supposed to be non-partisan,” said Rodriguez, whose demeanor was non-judgmental.

By this time, Blue and Halverson had arrived. Soon, Blue addressed the group. She immediately referred to the three recommendations that the ACCJC had issued to Irvine Valley College (that trustees should cease micromanaging, that groups’ roles and responsibilities should be clarified, and that the “plague of despair” should be addressed). She seemed pleased with the efforts that were being made at the college, but she hastened to add that the college could not address these problems by itself. District leadership, too, must make an effort, if this recommendation is to be met.

Before continuing, she asked the board to offer its assessment of the situation.


TRUSTEES OFFER THEIR ASSESSMENT

● Board President DAVE LANG spoke first. He suggested that the district/college was making “significant progress” on the recommendations. With regard to micromanagement, progress is being made, he said, but there’s still “work to do.” He seemed to make an effort to defend the actions of some board members on the grounds that they have a special “perspective” about their role. For instance, some trustees feel strongly that they must oversee any significant expenditure of funds. He seemed to say that trustees feel that they have a duty to the public to bring their “social beliefs” into their decisions. Some organizations (for instance, the ALA), he said, have attitudes that, in the minds of some trustees, don’t “reflect our community.”

Lang seemed resigned: these differences in “perspective” will likely never be resolved, he said.

Lang agreed that the board hasn’t always set the “best example” at meetings. We have a "way to go," he said.

● Trustee NANCY PADBERG suggested that “some” trustees (no doubt she was referring to John Williams) want board meetings “to last an hour.” She expressed frustration over efforts to “curtail” comments and discussions.

She said that she is “quite concerned” that the two college presidents are treated as though they are on a par with the shared governance groups. She suggested that they ought to be “elevated” at board meetings.

She shared others’ concerns with the unfortunate lack of civility at meetings.

● Trustee MARCIA MILCHIKER said that trustees do try to be pleasant to each other, but that they sometimes yell at each other “in public.” She suggested that being “demeaning” to staff, too, is a problem. Those people are in a difficult position, she said, hinting that they have much to lose by defending themselves. (Again, see Blow by blow.)

She said that she agreed that the colleges should be allowed to join professional organizations that they feel that they must join and that the board should not “meddle” with study abroad programs. (That's "just my opinion," she added.) She stressed that “these are wonderful colleges” and that they should be accredited. She spoke of her wonderful experiences taking a biology course at IVC. She said something about body parts, secured at a "slaughter house," brought to class.

LANG then interjected a remark—apparently in response to Padberg. He said that meetings should, of course, go on until all the business is done, even if that means going over scheduled time. But it is also important, he said, for trustees to do their homework and to make appropriate inquiries to the Chancellor before meetings. (Nancy wore a sour look.)

● Trustee TOM FUENTES said that he was “grateful” for the teams’ reflections, for, as outsiders, they can be objective. He praised the leadership of the board president, Dave Lang, who, he said, leads with a “light gavel.”

Fuentes seemed to say that our issues in the district are not unique; in fact, they are found everywhere. There will always be tensions between faculty and administration, workers and management, etc.

Returning to an old theme, he complained that the faculty senates and the faculty union should be two bodies, but that, in truth, they are “meshed.” They are “one voice, not two.” Speaking metaphorically (and rather peculiarly), he said that the two groups have “hands held.”

He closed by emphasizing that each community is different and that this board reflects and represents its peculiar constituency. These trustees, he said, know the local constituency, which is not like the constituency of “Beverly Hills.”

● Trustee BILL JAY said he concurred with other trustees’ remarks. He noted that he has been with the district for 33 years, and, he added, he can testify that, in the past, board micromanagement was far worse. This board, he said, is “unusually conscientious.”

At that point, it became clear that only trustee DON WAGNER had not spoken. Everyone seemed to look to him. He said nothing. Lang remarked, finally, that the board knows that it can do better than it has, especially with regard to “civility.” (Arguably, Wagner has been the least civil of our trustees in recent months.)


BLUE’S REMARKS

Lang asked that Deborah Blue relate what she had heard and seen at the college (IVC) today. Blue then explained that she could not share that information, for she and her colleague had assured everyone that their conversations would be confidential.

She said that they were very encouraged by what they saw at the college. People at IVC are working very hard, she said, to establish better relationships and greater trust. They have accomplished “quite a bit.”

Still, she added, challenges remain. The people with whom she spoke were, she said, forthcoming about both strengths and weaknesses. She seemed unwilling to explicate the weaknesses. In general, the two teams’ remarks seemed to me to be punctuated by moments of things left unsaid. This seemed particularly true in the case of Deborah Blue.

But I could be wrong.

THE END

Raul Rodriguez chimed in to say that, at Saddleback College, he had found a “mixed bag.” Certainly, there were some positives. But, as in 1998, now, work must be done to overcome “hostility,” etc.

He emphasized that the board is faced with an “opportunity” to put these problems in the past by continuing to move in the “right directions.” The district, he suggested, does not want to be known for controversy.

Trustee Fuentes (i.e., Mr. Controversy) noted that none of the trustees who ran during the last election cycle were challenged, which suggests a certain level of community support.

Lang then expressed his appreciation for the two teams’ efforts. Everyone smiled, though not immensely. The meeting ended on that middling note. ▲

● ● ● ● ●
At 12:30, Blue & Halverson met with the IVC Academic Senate

After the board meeting, the Accreds met with "Chancellor's Cabinet"

Did you know that the district offices have a spacious lounge? Here are two views:


Jeez, that's uptown money!

A suggestion for BRAVO

● If there were a contest for the title of “most scandalous OC district,” it would be amazing—it would inspire another BRAVO TV series—since there are so many strong contenders! For instance: us.

You’ll recall that the Capistrano Unified School District has been in the news a lot owing to its sometimes wacky behavior—e.g., spending huge piles of money on a flashy new administration building. Well, the sort of thing led to a trustee recall attempt. —We had one of those, too. Remember? That led to further wackiness—Nixonian attempts to monitor the Recall leaders, etc. Eventually, the Superintendent had to resign.

Well, in this morning’s OC Reg (Funds came from other sources, CUSD admits), some more excrement really hits the fan:

Capistrano Unified School District officials acknowledged for the first time this week that they had misled the public about how they would pay for a new administration building, but urged the public to move on now that the correct information has been revealed.

…Twice, [Dave Doomey, deputy superintendent of facilities] … was asked Tuesday why the public was misled.

"It was misinformation that was provided. It was corrected this evening," Doomey said.

But why, somebody asked.

"I can't answer that question," he said, and moved on, despite insults hurled from the back of the room….

Wow. That really reminds me of one or two press conferences I’ve attended at SOCCCD over the years. Except for the honesty part.

● Speaking of assh*les, according to the Reg (State admonishes judge for courtroom remarks), OC’s Superior Court Judge James Brooks received a public admonishment yesterday.

How come? Well:

[I]n a 2004 hearing Brooks was rude to a civil-case defendant who said that he missed a deposition because he felt pressure in his chest and that his doctor told him to go immediately to the nearest hospital.

"Gee, I wonder what's going to happen when we put you in jail?" Brooks responded, according to the admonishment.

"Your little ticker might stop, you think?"

The judge later fined the man's wife $5,000 for contempt of court, threatened her with a larger fine and said, "I'd mention jail, but it might give her a heart attack."

In [another] … case, Brooks said from the bench in 2005 that women may not own property in the Middle East, according to the admonishment. Brooks then ruled that a Syrian woman was likely just a front for her husband in the ownership of a Santa Ana strip club.

"Probably a very nice lady – probably doesn't know how much she owns," the judge said, according to the courtroom transcript in that case.

Judge Brooks has been admonished thrice before. In one case in 1996,

…Brooks received an advisory letter for referring to a Hispanic defendant as "Pedro," issuing a bench warrant for an Asian defendant for "$10,000 or 20,000 yen," and telling a Hispanic defendant, "You have more names than the Tijuana telephone book."

Now get this! Brooks was “a deputy district attorney in Orange County for 14 years before he was elected to the municipal court bench.”

Perfect. I wonder what his salary is?

The Stain of Turin

● A month ago (Custodians vs. Wayne Ward), we reported that the CSEA local had written a letter to district HR officials regarding the case of Facilities and Maintenance worker Ruben M. In that letter, CSEA threatened to pursue a “hostile work environment/retaliation complaint” against IVC F&M Director Wayne Ward. Ward had decided to move Ruben to the swing shift, despite knowing the extreme hardship to Ruben's family that the action would create. In the letter, the CSEA suggested that Ward was taking this action to retaliate against Ruben for his involvement in the filing of an Unusual Occurance report against Ward.

A few weeks ago, Ruben and another F&M worker met with IVC President Roquemore concerning the alleged retaliation. Roquemore, I was told at the time, seemed sympathetic. He will not abide retaliation, he said.

Right. Ruben has now been moved to the swing shift. The union did not prevent it. Roquemore did not prevent it.

I'm told that Wayne now says that Ruben is being moved because he is a good, independent worker, just what is needed for the swing shift.

Ruben is also a very unhappy worker, as are many others in F&M.


● Today, a friend told a story about an attempt to replace a light bulb in one of the offices. An F&M worker was told about the need for the bulb. He said that he would have to get a ladder, and that would involve waiting until later in the afternoon, securing an electric cart, and then bringing the ladder (and, presumably, the bulb) to the office.

"Why not just use your radio to get somebody to bring a ladder and bulb?"

"Can't do that."

"How come?"

I've already forgotten the punchline. I think the F&M worker said that Wayne does not permit sudden variations in a worker's scheduled duties. Or maybe he said that two workers must not work together, cuz they might, um, something. I forget.

The point is that, owing to Wayne's absurd management policies, whatever they are, it now takes a great deal of time and effort to change a goddam light bulb.


● More than a year ago (Padberg visits), Trustee Nancy Padberg visited our college (IVC) and got a chance to tour several buildings, including A200. Inevitably, therefore, she encountered what we in the A200 building laughingly call the "faculty lounge."

It looks like shit. It's got no furniture, really. The floor is linoleum. Unmatching tables and chairs come and go. One finds students on the floor late at night.

Well, not long after that, we (with Nancy's help?) secured a promise from Prez Roquemore that things would change, that we'd finally get some real furniture for our "lounge," that all would be well.

A year later, we're still waiting.

Today, I was talking with someone in that big dumb empty space and they noticed that each of the four chairs around the one dumb table at the center of the "lounge" is (a) ugly and (b) different. (See picture.)

"Yeah," I said. "That really looks like shit."

Next to the ugliest of the four chairs is a big gaping trash container with one of those Hefty bags inside it. Lovely. Three feet from that is a paper shredder that no one uses. It's got a big plastic bag taped to one end of it. It's strictly Soviet Union, circa 1988.

My eyes wandered further to the right, where I noticed that, recently, an abandoned file cabinet that stood there for years had been removed. The removal left an ugly brown stain on the shitty linoleum. (See.)

"That's the Stain of Turin," said my friend.

"Yeah," I said, ignoring him. "But didn't we just get this linoleum? I mean, they made a big deal about how we were getting this 'new floor,' this linoleum, and now it's got this ugly brown stain."

"Yeah, somebody said they can see a rat's head in it."

We squinted at it for a while.


● The so-called "faculty lounge" is so utterly unfaculty-loungy that it is often used by students. Or it suddenly becomes a classroom annex.

Earlier this afternoon, an instructor was attempting to teach something to three or four of his students at the ugly little table in the center of the room. In the meantime, some faculty had gathered at the edge of the lounge zone to shoot the bull. It's like we were insisting on lounging in the lounge even though it doesn't have a shred of lounginess. This happens all the time.

I mean, where else are we going to hang out? We've got no place else to go!

I think the instructor was annoyed, but we stood our ground, cuz you get to talk to your colleagues sometimes between classes. I mean, that's like a human right or something, isn't it?

Soon, Wendy showed up, so, naturally, she commenced scheming her imminent takeover of the district. I said, "Wait! If we're gonna do that, let's get a picture." So here's what I got.


I hear that a Trustee actually told some faculty that Wendy "runs the district" or that she seeks to do so.

What does that even mean? That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

● On my way out, I stopped by A100, where, on the wall along Glenn's office, official announcements are posted. I noticed something there. Here's what I found:


Hope you can read it. It says that the board will meet with the Accreditation Teams tomorrow (Thursday, the 30th) at 2:30 in the Chancellor's Conference Room (3rd floor, HSB) to discuss the PROGRESS REPORTS. It also says:

An opportunity will be provided at the beginning of the meeting for public comments on this matter.

Hot damn!

Not even close

This morning, the OC Reg is pretty peevish about the high salaries of our county's five Supervisors (It's good to be a supervisor), who make much more than their counterparts in LA and San Diego Counties.

But their salaries don’t even come close to SOCCCD Chancellor Raghu P. Mathur’s salary.

Heads up! Accreds visiting this week!

He's making a list and checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
"Warning" clause is coming to town

s you know, the Accreditation teams are visiting our two colleges this week. On Thursday, I believe, we'll have opportunities to speak with the teams.

WHAT'S UP

Our colleges’ Accred situation is complex, for each college is on two schedules. (1) Each is going through the standard accreditation process, which involves a midterm report, due in a year or so. (2) In the meantime, each college is going through the process of responding to the Accrediting agency’s recommendations.

You’ll recall that the Accreds were impressed by instruction, etc., but they were unhappy with, and RECOMMENDED remediation of:

● continued board micromanagement (Saddleback, IVC)
● administrative instability (Saddleback)
● lack of clarity re governance groups' roles and responsibilities (IVC)
● the plague of despair (IVC/SC?)

THIS WEEK'S ACCRED VISIT CONCERNS (ONLY) THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATIONS and whether our colleges are responding to them adequately. This is not the occasion to raise other concerns.

Back in September, I had occasion to describe each college's progress report draft. I reproduce that discussion below:

Saddleback College Progress Report:

✔ Re board micromanagement:

There are some issues that still need attention. Among them are these…(2) [T]he board’s rejection of college-determined institutional memberships…In March 2006, one board member pulled the American Library Association membership…The trustees spent portions of three board meetings debating whether or not the ALA endorsed pornography for children…[T]he board now requires detailed justification each time an institutional membership is requested or renewed.

…Another perception is that the board favors other units (such as ATEP) within the district over Saddleback College.

Evaluation: …[T]he question that requires clarification is whether the college defines its own mission, goals and objectives…? Or, whether it is the district that defines its mission, goals and objectives and the college…then defines its role in response to the district mission?....

✔ Re administrative instability:

The perception remains among faculty and classified staff that the governance style of the board and district discourages college administrators from taking risks to solve difficult problems….

Irvine Valley College Progress Report:

✔ Re board micromanagement:

[During a March 27 presentation,] [t]he Chancellor … states that there is no college that has lost accreditation because of micromanagement….The Chancellor intimates that the faculty and staff may invite micromanagement by the board, as noted in the following statement:

“To the faculty and staff, please don’t invite micromanagement by going directly to the board about college issues. Please come to me as chancellor and/or go to the college presidents.”

…During [a]…discussion…, other trustees [than Mr. Fuentes] raised concerns as to whether it would be prudent to continue denying that there is a problem with board micromanagement by blaming other constituent groups. In response to those concerns, … [Fuentes] states:

“I’m saying that the problem in this district is more a macromanagement by elements who ought not to be macromanaging than it is by a couple of trustees on this board micromanaging….”

…[T]he majority of the board and the chancellor believe that the issues in the district relate to macromanagement by faculty leaders rather than micromanagement by the board….

…On January 31, 2006, in opposition to the recommendation of the chancellor, the board voted to deny the colleges’ institutional membership in the American Library Association, alleging that: 1) the ALA is comprised of “liberal busybodies…”; 2) the ALA opposed the Child Internet Protection Act and therefore favored allowing children access to pornography in public libraries; and 3) the ALA opposed the USA Patriot Act.

…Similar board involvement occurred relative to the decision by the IVC administration to discontinue intercollegiate tennis…Based on the discussion of the board and presentations by members of the community, the college administration elected to continue the intercollegiate tennis program.

Rebel Girl's Poetry Corner: If I Had a Hammer

If Rebel Girl had a hammer, you can bet she'd hammer in the morning, in the evening, all over this campus. There is, indeed, much repair needed.

However, the inability to find the necessary tool to hammer out our particular strains of injustice and incompetence, plus the inability to generate many words continues (Week 2!), so Rebel Girl will do what some of her students sometimes do when faced with a blank page and a deadline: Quote! A lot!

It's an obvious enough strategy that she hopes will distract you enough to give her a passing grade for this week. Her offering is from Dean Young, a poet who lives part-time in Berkeley and the rest of the year where he teaches, in Iowa City. RG runs into him every other year at a summer writing conference where she serves the gods of poetry the best she can.

Hammer
BY DEAN YOUNG

Every Wednesday when I went to the shared office
before the class on the comma, etc.,
there was on the desk, among
the notes from students aggrieved and belly-up
and memos about lack of funding
and the quixotic feasibility memos
and labyrinthine parking memos
and quizzes pecked by red ink
and once orange peels,
a claw hammer.
There when I came and there when I left,
it didn’t seem in anyone’s employ.
There was no room left to hang anything.
It already knew how to structure an argument.
It already knew that it was all an illusion
that everything hadn’t blown apart
because of its proximity to oblivion,
having so recently come from oblivion itself.
Its epiphyses were already closed.
It wasn’t my future that was about to break its wrist
or my past that was god knows where.
It looked used a number of times
not entirely appropriately
but its wing was clearly healed.
Down the hall was someone with a glove
instead of a right hand.
A student came by looking for who?
Hard to understand
then hard to do.
I didn’t think much of stealing it,
having so many hammers at home.
There when I came, there when I left.
Ball peen, roofing, framing, sledge, one
so small of probably only ornamental use.
That was one of my gifts,
finding hammers by sides of roads, in snow, inheriting,
one given by a stranger for a jump in the rain.
It cannot be refused, the hammer.
You take the handle, test its balance
then lift it over your head.

Leprechauns & heaviness, obeisance-wise

obeisance: acknowledgment of another's superiority or importance : HOMAGE

There are some interesting—and perhaps important—items in this morning’s Inside Higher Ed. In its “Quick Takes” section, we learn:

● While many American policy makers of late have been worrying about increased competition from India’s universities, a report in the International Herald Tribune found that outside a small number of elite Indian universities, most of the country’s higher education system is in terrible shape. “Most of the 11 million students in the 18,000 Indian colleges and universities receive starkly inferior training, heavy on obeisance and light on marketable skills, students, educators and business leaders say,” according to the article. [My emphasis.]

Heavy on obeisance? Imagine that!

● A former student at the Art Institute of Portland, in Oregon, says that he was suspended and then expelled, in a series of events that started when he questioned another student’s belief in leprechauns and she complained about his questions, The Portland Mercury reported. Institute officials denied that anyone could be expelled for questioning another’s belief in leprechauns and suggested that other issues were involved.

● This morning’s lead article (Fixing Higher Ed, Legislator-Style) is a description of a new report on the state of higher ed in the U.S., and it ain’t pretty:

Higher education is in crisis, in large part because of government neglect, and states must take the lead in fixing the problems, a bipartisan group of state legislators says in a new report.

“Transforming Higher Education: National Imperative — State Responsibility,” the report from a 12-member special panel of the National Conference of State Legislators, in many ways falls in line with other recent studies that have identified concerns about access to and the performance of American colleges and universities….

Like those reports, the legislators’ study (a summary of which can be found here) cites statistics showing the United States slipping on international indicators, bemoans the effect that increasing tuitions and flattening financial aid have had on college access for low and middle income students and adult learners, and notes that those problems must be addressed if the country is to provide a meaningful future for the waves of educationally underprepared Americans preparing to slam into higher education and society….

…“The American higher education system is no longer the best in the world,” the NSCL report states without equivocation. “Although the United States has some of the best institutions in the world, we do a poor job overall in our mass education production.... The American higher education system is not preparing students for the 21st century global society.... Faculty are content with the teaching methods of the past and are not changing as the world is changing.”….

● ALSO: in this morning's New York Times (Pastor Chosen to Lead Christian Coalition Steps Down in Dispute Over Agenda):

The president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America, which has long served as a model for activism for the religious right, has stepped down, saying the group resisted his efforts to broaden its agenda to include reducing poverty and fighting global warming....

Jeez, what would Jesus say?

Gee Whizzery

Looks like the OC Register has decided to toss a fuzzy little softball at IVC. Check out “Irvine Valley College to build business center” in this morning’s edition, which notes the recent groundbreaking ceremony and offers a healthy dollop of Gee-Whizzery:

"There's just no doubt with a structure like this … it's a wonderful addition for the campus," said Glenn Roquemore…."This particular building will be at the cutting edge of technology."

Aesthetically, the center will have a "high-tech look on a low budget," said Raul Villalba, SOCCCD director of facilities planning.

"I think it will motivate students," [student Tomo] Mizuno said.

Also, DON’T FORGET: this is the week in which the ACCREDS visit re Validation of the 2006 Accreditation Progress Report.

Mentoring do's and don't's

Mentoring is a good thing. But you've gotta be careful. Many years ago, in one of my philosophy classes, I mentioned a very difficult essay—it was called, “Do the numbers count?”—and it was considered a brain-teaser by my pals back in grad school. In class, I briefly explained its argument. I mentioned that I found it difficult. The next day, a student from that class showed up for my office hours to explain the article to me. He had found it, read it, and understood it. I was astonished. There was no doubt in my mind that the kid was a genius. Subsequent conversations confirmed this. I was his mentor, I guess, for about a day or two. But some of his remarks soon revealed that he was, well, mentally ill. (Don’t ask.) I’m no expert, but I am certain that the kid was very dangerous, perhaps a psychopath. I tried to nix the mentor/mentee thing (and I tried to get the kid some counseling), but it was too late: he started stalking me and I had to call in the authorities. I hate when that happens. EARLIER TODAY, I read the latest article in the OC Weekly (Sad Chronicle) about accused child molester Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, a prominent local Republican activist with close ties to Republican bigwigs like Dana Rohrabacher, Michael Schroeder, Scott Baugh, and Tom Fuentes. According to the Weekly, back in 1996, then-25-year-old Nielsen was being mentored by the likes of Tom Fuentes. That, at any rate, is the impression left by letters printed by the Weekly and allegedly written at the time by Nielsen to a young boy in Virginia. In a letter dated October, Nielsen wrote:

It was really nice to get a letter from you and for you to call me. I understand that you are not able to call me as much as I call you. Just tell me when you want me to call. I don’t mind being the one doing the calling, as long as you’re there to receive the call…. So, here’s what’s going on with me. On Friday, Tom Fuentes (the chairman of the OC Republican Party) called me and wanted me to meet him at Macy’s at South Coast Plaza. I got there and he bought me a suit. Then he took me to dinner and the sauna at the ritzy Balboa Bay Club. [Name deleted] told me he likes to reward hard-working young Republicans that he likes and he knows are going to go far. It was really rewarding. As you know, I’ve been working really hard on the Scott Baugh campaign…. The only time I’m not working is when I’m watching a USC game, at church, asleep or writing you . . . or trying to get my law school applications together. I’ve got both my USC and Chapman applications typed. I’m working on getting all of my Letters of Recommendation together now. I’ve got Rohrabacher, Flanagan and Fuentes done. Today I found out that this guy who is the state chair of the Republican Party, Mike Schroeder (a friend of Rohrabacher), would also write me a letter of rec. It’s really good that he does because he’s on the board of trustees at USC Law School.

Gee, sounds like Jeff’s got some important friends there! Eventually, Scott Baugh got Nielsen a job with fancy Irvine law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Then (says the Weekly), in 2003, “Nielsen was arrested…for allegedly molesting a Westminster High School freshman boy and possessing a huge, illegal cache of man-boy pornography.” After several (suspicious) delays, the trial is set for January 22. I know what it’s like, Tom. You try to help a kid out, and what happens? They turn out to be psychopaths and accused child molesters, that’s what. I woulda nixed the suit-buying episode, though. And that “dinner and spa” business is a little off, I think. Sends the wrong signals fer sher. But, other than that, I feel your pain, brother.

Still HAVA problem!

This morning, I read (in this morning’s San Jose Mercury) that, in the Senate, Diane Feinstein will be leading an effort to scrutinize e-voting.

Democrats had braced for Republican funny-business during the last election—especially e-voting skullduggery—but when the election turned out well for them, the issue seemed to disappear.

Obviously, the country can't afford to lose sight of it. Perhaps Feinstein's on the ball. Sure hope so.

The Mercury article mentions an organization, founded by a Stanford computer science prof, that is devoted to e-voting reform. According to the Verified Voting Foundation [VVF] website,

The Verified Voting Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization championing reliable and publicly verifiable elections…[T]he organization supports a requirement for voter-verified paper ballots…on electronic voting machines allowing voters to verify individual permanent records of their ballots and election officials to conduct meaningful recounts….

Please check it out. (See also Voter's rights advocacy organizations--Wiki.)

HAVA

As you know, after the 2000 Florida election debacle, citizens fretted about the integrity of vote counting, and that led to legislation called the “Help America Vote Act” (HAVA). HAVA is widely understood as having mandated the use of e-voting (i.e., electronic voting) systems. That has produced a windfall for electronic voting systems vendors such as Diebold.

Mighty suspicious, I’d say.

Oddly, HAVA mandated the use of e-voting, but it also permitted the use of record-less e-voting machines. Since the 2000 election, many states have moved toward e-voting, but they have not insisted upon e-voting systems that leave records.

One might say, then, that HAVA has produced CRAPPA, or worse.

Hence the creation of VVF and similar organizations.

EAC? —P.U.

Naturally, HAVA created a commission, namely, the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), which is advised by two boards, the smaller of which is the EAC Board of Advisors. EAC and its boards have been busy bees. They're buzzing right now. Hear 'em?

When, back in May, conservative Republican J.C. Watts left EAC's Board of Advisors, Speaker Dennis Hastert (yes, that guy) nominated our own TOM FUENTES to replace Watts. Bush then appointed Fuentes. (See More on Fuentes’ appointment.) Naturally, it was a slam-dunk.

DtB duly reported Fuentes’ nomination, which yielded an appreciative posting on Matt Coker’s Clockwork Orange (5/23/06):

Our buddies at Dissent the Blog are following up an announcement made at the most recent SOCCCD Board of Trustees‘ meeting that former Orange County Republican Party chairman Tom Fuentes has been appointed to the agency that “certifies” electronic-voting systems. As DtB [Dissent the Blog] so eloquently put it:

“Uh-oh.”

[Matt then mentions HAVA.]…The main goal of that act is to replace paper voting with electronic voting. As DtB so eloquently put it:

“Yikes!”

Joining the U.S. Election Assistance Commission is apparently a more plum (plumer? Plumber? Dick Nixon? Hello?) appointment than the National Dog Catcher Commission board or whatever the hell that lowly agency was that Bush appointed Fuentes to after the 2000 stolen presidential election.

INSTA-ADDENDUM: Say, who was that Orange County Republican Party chairman who in 1988 approved the use of poll guards to intimidate Latinos going to vote? And he’s now gonna help oversee national elections at a time when anti-immigrant fever is spreading like lube at a Young Republicans circle jerk? Good times!

Sadly, Matt’s blog is now defunct, evidently.

OK, so here’s my point. HAVA is a DISASTA. And when the likes of TOM FUENTES become our election watchdogs, well, THINGS SUCK BIGTIME.

So let’s support Feinstein’s efforts and the efforts of such organizations as VVF!

Sans surge

[Please see UPDATE at end.]

Yesterday, the OC Register threw Orange Coast College (OCC) a big fluffy softball in the form of the article "Orange Coast College tops in 4-year transfers”.

Indeed, OCC is tops when it comes to CSU transfers. Check out the rest of the top 25 “transfer” (to CSU) community colleges. They're listed in the article.

Alas, SOCCCD’s two colleges are nowhere to be found on that list. How come? (See update below. IVC is too small. Saddleback is not.)

Today, the Reg throws a somewhat harder ball at the same college: "Community college students stuck in rut”. OCC may be No. 1 in CSU transfers—and No. 3 in combined UC/CSU transfers—but that doesn’t mean that many students are transferring or that many students are getting degrees:

Students at California's community colleges are unlikely to earn associate's degrees or transfer to four-year universities, even if they enroll with those goals in mind, according to a new study from the Public Policy Institute of California.

Researchers studied student data over seven years and described "pervasive attrition" throughout the system, particularly among older, black and Hispanic students….

"Providing associate's degrees is a major function of community colleges, yet less than one-tenth of students … earned an associate's degree," according to the [report’s authors]…. "In addition, only about a quarter of students who were focused on transfer courses in their first year eventually transferred to a four-year institution."

…"This is not a report that says that community colleges are doing a bad job. They may just have students who are ill-prepared to achieve," said Hans Johnson, the research fellow who edited the report. "But there is an educational mismatch between what employers demand and what our system can supply. Employers are going to demand more college graduates than the state is able to produce."

…The statewide chancellor for the community colleges, Marshall Drummond, said many of the system's students arrive ill-prepared for college work and need to take remedial training, slowing the process.

University of California and California State University officials also blame poor preparation by K-12 schools for their student attrition

…OCC student Josh Aden remembers going to an academic counselor when he arrived on campus in fall 2004 and asking for help setting up a plan to see what he needed to transfer.

According to Aden, the counselor misdirected him into four classes that turned out to be nontransferable – a fact he didn't learn until he went to another counselor the following year.

"He said, 'Why are you taking these classes?' I said, 'Well, the other guy told me to take them.' He said: 'Don't take them. They are nontransferable. You don't need to be taking these classes.' "….

Hmmm. That doesn't sound so good. (To be fair: Aden is just one case. Proves nothing.)

I'm so glad that I teach at the far superior South Orange County Community College District, a district so phenomenally kick-ass that the Chancellor--Raghu P. Mathur--has been rewarded with a salary well over a quarter million dollars a year! Imagine that!

On Monday, the Board of Trustees gave him more fabulous cash prizes!

--No, wait. The Reg article includes a list of the “top 25” community colleges re transferring to California's four-year institutions (i.e., CSU & UC combined).

OCC is No. 3. Good for them. Fullerton College is No. 8. Not bad.

Our own Saddleback College is way down there at No. 21. Hmmm.

IVC isn’t even on the list. [Well, its size takes it out of the competition. See below.]

--OK, OK. We're still kick-ass! I mean, consider the surge in enrollments we've been experiencing!

Well, no. I checked. There's no surge. We're definintely sans surge.

Increases in productivity? Nope. Sterling accreditation evaluations? Not. Um.......

I'm thinking, I'm thinking!

UPDATE (midnight):

Some who left comments (see) made valid points that require a more careful examination of the data. For instance, is it fair to expect IVC to make the top 25 in number of students who transfer when it is a relatively small college? Etc.

Below, is the ranked list of California community colleges that transfer the most students to the University of California and California State University systems, 2005-06—according to the Register’s article, Community college students stuck in rut.

I wanted to find enrollment data for these colleges, and so I went to the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office website and found a page called Chancellor’s Office Data Mart. I could find no data concerning headcount (i.e., the number of students enrolled per college), but I did find data, per college, for “Full Time Equivalent Students." (FTES takes all courses taken and divides by a full-time student’s load of classes.)

I selected “annual 2005-6” and got data for all California community colleges. I focused only on “credit” FTES.

The upshot: below is the Register’s ranked list—plus FTES in each case. (I do hope I made no clerical errors. I rounded to the nearest 100.)

1. Santa Monica College (23,900)
2. De Anza College (23,100)
3. Orange Coast College (17,800)
4. Diablo Valley College (16,500)
5. Pasadena City College (21,500)
6. Mt. San Antonio College (22,000)
7. City Coll. of San Francisco (30,000)
8. Fullerton College (16,500)
9. El Camino College (15,300)
10. Riverside Comm. College (21,800)
11. San Diego Mesa College (14,000)
12. American River College (21,200)
13. Fresno City College (15,600)
14. Grossmont College (11,600)
15. Sierra College (13,200)
16. Palomar College (18,700)
17. Moorpark College (12,200)
18. Santa Rosa Jr. College (16,900)
19. Santa Barbara City Coll. (13,100)
20. Pierce College (12,400)
21. Saddleback College (13,800)
22. Glendale Community Coll. (11,900)
23. Sacramento City College (16,100)
24. Cerritos College (18,600)
25. East Los Angeles College (17,400)

Irvine Valley College has 7,000 FTES, and so, indeed, it is unreasonable to expect IVC to make this list—a list that comprises no colleges with fewer than 11,600 FTES.

Of course, the real issue is: how well does IVC do re transfers compared to other community colleges with similar FTES/enrollments? I have the transfer numbers for IVC (see Student right to know—rates), but I do not have comparison numbers.

How well does Saddleback College do re transfers compared to other colleges with equal or fewer FTES? I’ve taken the above list and ranked it by number of FTES:

1. City Coll. of San Francisco (30,000)
2. Santa Monica College (23,900)
3. De Anza College (23,100)
4. Mt. San Antonio College (22,000)
5. Riverside Comm. College (21,800)
6. Pasadena City College (21,500)
7. American River College (21,200)
8. Palomar College (18,700)
9. Cerritos College (18,600)
10. Orange Coast College (17,800)
11. East Los Angeles College (17,400)
12. Santa Rosa Jr. College (16,900)
13. Diablo Valley College (16,500)
14. Fullerton College (16,500)
15. Sacramento City College (16,100)
16. Fresno City College (15,600)
17. El Camino College (15,300)
18. San Diego Mesa College (14,000)
19. Saddleback College (13,800)
20. Sierra College (13,200)
21. Santa Barbara City Coll. (13,100)
22. Pierce College (12,400)
23. Moorpark College (12,200)
24. Glendale Community Coll. (11,900)
25. Grossmont College (11,600)

Again, the real issue is, how well does Saddleback College do re transfers compared to colleges with comparable FTES? Check this out:

Fresno City College (15,600) #13
El Camino College (15,300) #9
San Diego Mesa College (14,000) #11
Saddleback College (13,800) #21
Sierra College (13,200) #15
Santa Barbara City Coll. (13,100) #19
Pierce College (12,400) #20
Moorpark College (12,200) #17
Glendale Community Coll. (11,900) #22
Grossmont College (11,600) #14

I selected these ten colleges on the Register's list, with FTES from 11,600 to 15,600—roughly comparable to Saddleback College’s 13,800.

Within this group, only one college is ranked lower in transfers than Saddleback College. (Remember, too, that Saddleback College doesn't appear at all on the list of top 25 CSU transfer institutions.)

Of course, it is possible that there are other community colleges (with comparable FTES) that didn’t make the top 25. (See all California community colleges.) But it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m goin’ to bed.

So Cal tsunamis?

When the ocean swallows Capistrano
That's the day you promised to float back to me
When you whispered, "Farewell", in Capistrano
Twas the day your Chevy floated out to sea

All the mission bells will ring
The chapel choir will sing
Your Naugahyde box spring
Will live in my memory

When the ocean swallows Capistrano
That's the day I pray that you'll float back to me

—When the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano, sort of

EVER SINCE that Indian Ocean disaster two years ago, we’ve been hearing about tsunamis. So I’m sure you’re aware that we on the West Coast are vulnerable to such events. That’s cuz

Shake 'n' Bake + Ocean = Tsunami.

Tsunami Central in California is Crescent City, about 20 miles south of the Oregon border. According to Wikipedia,

…the city experienced tsunami conditions 17 times between the years 1943 and 1994. …[T]he city was extensively damaged by a tsunami [bringing over 20-foot waves] in 1964…. There were 12 fatalities…. The city is deemed to be tsunami-ready today. Its preparedness was tested on June 14, 2005 when an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale hit 90 miles offshore. Reportedly, much of the city was evacuated in a matter of 20 minutes when a tsunami warning was issued, but no waves were reported.

Sounds good. But Wiki goes on to report an event that occurred a little more than a week ago:

On November 15, 2006, a magnitude 8.3 earthquake struck off Kuril Island in the eastern Pacific. A tsunami warning was issued but rescinded hours later. However, a surge from that quake did hit the harbor at Crescent City causing damage to three docks and several boats.

This morning, I found an article in Inside the Bay Area/Oakland Tribune that describes a report on recent California tsunami warnings by a San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. According to the article, the grand jury found that San Mateo County’s coastal cities are unprepared for a “tsunami strike.” In the case of the 2005 tsunami alert, “Many coastal residents didn't learn of the warning until it was canceled, and many of those that did hear the warning found out through the National Weather Service on television. Moreover, no broadcast was made either at the coast's beaches or on the streets.”

Why am I not surprised?


THE TSUNAMI THREAT TO KHAL-EE-FORNIA

I came across a recent (12/05) study by the State of California Seismic Safety Commission entitled The Tsunami Threat to California (a 15-page pdf file). (Among the dozen or so members of the CSSC is seismologist Lucy Jones. You remember her!)

I recommend that you read this highly-readable report. Among its findings:

● Tsunamis, generated either locally or from events elsewhere in the Pacific Basin, pose a significant threat to life and property in California.

● Californians are not adequately educated about tsunamis and the risk they pose….

● The existing tsunami warning system has not achieved all of its objectives for several reasons including problems with communications, agency coordination and protocols.

● Present building codes and guidelines do not adequately address the impacts of tsunamis on structures….

● …[M]ore effort and a better understanding of the risk is required to bring the treatment of tsunamis to a level comparable to other State hazards such as earthquakes.

WHAT ABOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA?

I happened upon a 4-year-old study, funded by FEMA, entitled Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities. (It’s a 32 page pdf file.)

This study focuses on the risk caused by very local earthquakes (Catalina Island), though it does briefly note the potential for landslides and “distant” earthquakes.

The article is pretty technical. In its “conclusions” section, it states:

Significant run-up was measured along the southern California coast from Point Mugu to Solana Beach at the ends of the bathymetry grid. Maximum run-up exceeded one meter along most of the coast between Santa Monica and Dana Point, with peaks of 1.5-2.2 m at Marina del Rey, Redondo Beach, Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, and the Orange County coast from Seal Beach to Newport Beach.

I think they’re saying that much of the OC coastline is at risk:

These areas most severely affected also correspond to the major harbor areas where marine terminals and boating facilities are located in harm’s way. Experience from historical distant…show these harbor areas to be vulnerable to strong currents that scour pilings and smash boats…. [A]ctual coastal run-up values from large earthquakes on the Santa Catalina Island restraining bend may exceed 2-4 m. Travel time between the earthquake occurrence and arrival of the first waves at the adjacent coast varies from 10-20 minutes for the areas most severely affected, much shorter for locations on the island, so that no official warnings could be broadcast in sufficient time for evacuation. [The earthquake itself]…may provide the only warning to affected coastal residents, and concurrent quake-related damage, including potential widespread liquefaction and failures of oversteepened coastal bluffs, may exacerbate evacuation or rescue efforts. Fortunately, large earthquakes on this major offshore fault system appear to be infrequent, with estimated recurrence intervals measured in several hundred to thousands of years….

If I read the report correctly, it goes on to say that the chance of a major tsunami caused by local earthquakes is not high (because they are historically infrequent), but that the death and destruction caused by such an event would be so great that the only reasonable view is to regard the threat as real and important:

…Consequently, the hazard posed by locally generated tsunami attack is very serious and should be appropriately mitigated. Lastly, this study only examined the tectonic deformation from large earthquakes as potential tsunami source. Large-scale submarine landslides represent a serious threat, and the large earthquakes we have modeled would very likely trigger widespread slope failures, both subaerially along the coasts and submarine landslides along the steep borderland slopes….

(My emphases in above quotations.)

(See also: Tsunami Research Center (USC))

Horror for Horowitz

It’s a cabal!!!

Wednesday’s Inside Higher Ed reported some bad news for right-wing writer David Horowitz: From Bad to Worse for David Horowitz:

A week ago, it looked like David Horowitz had a few things to be thankful for in the emerging report of the Pennsylvania legislative panel that was looking for examples of violations of students’ rights because of their political views.

Sure, the committee had reported that it didn’t really find examples of the alleged oppression that he maintains is widespread. But Horowitz pointed to the committee’s recommendation that colleges adopt policies to protect student rights. And he liked the many pages included in the draft report that summarized testimony by Horowitz and some of his allies. Those are all gone in the final version of the report the committee approved Tuesday, which is being hailed by academic groups as completely vindicating their views.

Horowitz said that he was furious about the “breathtaking audacity of this theft of the report by the Democrats and the unions,” and that a “cabal” of faculty leaders had convinced “weak-spined Republicans” (who controlled the committee) to go along with the “theft.”….

…By removing all the pages summarizing testimony (a summary that many college officials believed was one-sided in favor of Horowitz), the committee removed a permanent record that seemed unfavorable and many thought unfair to academe. And because the final vote on the report was unanimous — on a committee controlled by Republicans — the committee made it more difficult for Horowitz to blame his problems on liberals.

…Asked how he could claim victory [as he had, recently] when the legislative panel had worked so hard to identify student victims, and failed, Horowitz offered more stories of students who were being hurt. He said that he had spoken to a dance student who was upset about her paper’s grade and that he had encouraged her to file a grievance. She didn’t want to. Horowitz acknowledged that there was no political issue in the paper, but said her reluctance to go through the grievance machinery showed the problems that students face.

Then Horowitz said that he had heard that a political science professor at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Diana Zoelle, had given a test in which students were forced to explain why the war in Iraq is wrong, with the implication that their grade would be lower if they did not back that position. Horowitz acknowledged that he had not checked out the report, although Zoelle reported that she has been hearing from others that Horowitz has been speaking about the alleged exam.

Reached while en route to her Thanksgiving vacation, Zoelle said that Horowitz was “absolutely incorrect.” She said that Horowitz and his staff never called to ask her about the exam, although she asked around when she heard that he was telling people about some complaint about her. She said that she has never used a test question about the Iraq war.…

…Horowitz, asked why he couldn’t document more of the cases of students being hurt — the basis of his movement — said: “Why do I have to run around the country finding these kids?”

SOCCCD Trustee Tom Fuentes is a “director” of Eagle Publishing, and Eagle Publishing is the parent company of Regnery Publishing, which publishes various titles, including those hostile to Darwin—and, of course, to liberals. Prime example: Horowtiz's The Professors.

See “Kill it & Grill it” and other Fuenteian titles.

Relevant DtB posts:
● Horowitz nearly creamed
● Tasering guys in the butt
● Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights

Elephant's Foot

Have you followed the “Piecemakers” saga? The Piecemakers are a 26-member commune—led by the 85-year-old Marie Kolasinski—that operates a daffy “quilts & sandwiches” tearoom in Costa Mesa.

These Piecemakers seem to be wacked-out fundamentalist Christians. But they're a little different. They view themselves as oppressed Libertarians, fighting a ruthless and meddling government.

I’m not sure whether to root for them or not.

I read about them on Tuesday, in the LA Times: Defiant Orange County sect leader says county is 'wrestling with God':

The group, made up of mostly elderly women, runs a homey store on Adams Avenue that features handmade quilts, craft supplies and a small tearoom that serves sandwiches, soups and sweets.

For some years, the group has barred county health inspectors from its facility, citing freedom of religion as justification.

After a final failed attempt to inspect the store in October 2005, [a] county investigator … obtained a warrant and entered the site with … Costa Mesa police….

[In court,] Deputy Dist. Atty. Scott Steiner played several videotapes of the incident, which showed defiant Piecemakers spewing profanities and Kolasinski demanding, "Give me liberty or give me death."

… She said she and her religious followers would make every effort to keep their store clean of "the devil" — the government — which tries to lord it over them "with a big hatchet."

"They've got so many laws, I'm afraid to put my foot out the door," she said.

…It wasn't the first time the group had run into trouble with the government. In 1997, Piecemakers were prosecuted for putting on the musical "Big River" in their parking lot without a city permit.

Prosecuted for an unauthorized musical? That tears it. I’m rootin’ for ‘em!

Evidently, the county has been circling the Troublemakers for years. The DA's office even ran an "underground" investigation on them, sending in spies, testing cookies, bugging soup.

As the Register’s Frank Mickadeit explained yesterday (Guilty as sin), the Piecemakers’ trial went badly for them, and so, once again, Meddlesome Big Government is about to grind its big stupid toe into our heroes' backs. Mickadeit wasn’t terribly sympathetic:

I think I know the moment I went from thinking of … Marie Kolasinski and her band as an affable group of quilt-making, pie-baking, health permit-faking Jesus people to viewing them as foul-mouthed, one-good-bender-away-from-a-Kool-Aid-party sectarians who wrap their hatred of government in the cloak of their Savior.

It was the moment I saw a video at the Piecemakers' trial this week in which Kolasinski cursed health inspectors who had done nothing more than ask to inspect her Costa Mesa café. She dropped F-bombs on them like they'd asked to crucify our Lord. At least three other followers continued the F-bomb barrage, with the occasional taking in vain of His name. Not exactly the way Jesus reacted when they came for him at Gethsemane – an allusion Kolasinski later made on the stand.

"You've got quite a mouth on you," I told her during a break.

"You'd have quite a mouth on you too if you had a pistol shoved up your ***," she replied.

Mickadeit notes that there is no evidence of police pistol-shovage. On the other hand, no doubt the cops had pistols, and, as we all know (unless we’re not paying attention), in Orange County, people sometimes get shot and killed by police just for being weird, and these people qualify.

Orange County is a special place in so many ways. It’s pretty conservative, but there’s an undeniable element of Libertarianism to be found here.

Occasionally, our own trustee Don Wagner outs himself as a Libertarian. In the OC, it's not hard to find people who talk the Libertarian talk.

Though I don’t agree with the Libertarian vision, I think I understand it, and I understand its allure. It does not surprise me that some find it utterly compelling and worth fighting for--and even worth defiantly living by. This Kolasinski person may well be sincere about her Libertarianism. And now the government is stomping its Elephant’s Foot upon her.

It’s so easy to view Kolasinski as ridiculous. But it doesn’t take much thought or imagination to view her otherwise.

I sympathize, and I’m not even a Libertarian. Where are the Libertarians? Where’s the outcry?

Orange County, you disappoint me.

(For a mildly sympathetic editorial, see last year’s Piecemakers know no peace.)

P.S.: I went to the website for the Prometheus Institute, OC's Libertarian think tank, and searched under both "Piecemakers" and "Kolasinksi." Nothing came up.

Chunk's board meeting report

“I think that the drug war was a mistake.”

From The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

CONSIDERABLE TIME was devoted to exultation regarding Saddleback’s Gaucho football team, which is undefeated and headed for the state championship. Good for them. See Traci's highlights.

Norma Yanni came up to receive an honor (along with Lise Telson and Bob Cosgrove) re Best Practices in Student Equity, and this inspired Dave Lang to murmur insipidly that “we are certainly a board who believes in diversity as well.”

All seven of the trustees are Republicans. Some diversity.

During trustee reports, Bill Jay noted that there had been a groundbreaking for a “Business Sciences” building at IVC that very day. He took the opportunity to suggest that Saddleback College needs a stadium. This has become his hobbyhorse, though he shares this particular nag with John Williams. Bill mentioned Curt McLendon’s name, too. Something about a letter from Oregon. The Twilight Zone theme could be heard.

In his report, Don Wagner referred to the earlier announcement of the Gauchos’ success, noting, with customary peevishness, that the PE dean wasn't present. As you know, at the last board meeting, Wagner slapped the dean around a bit.

Tom Fuentes indicated that, later, he would have something important to say about “veterans.”

Nancy Padberg noted the passing of Milton Friedman, a champion, she said, of free enterprise and freedom. She requested that, when the meeting adjourns, it adjourn “in honor” of the F-man. I don’t see how that’s an honor. Besides, Milt would surely take a dim view of the board’s history of thwarting competition in favor of cronyism.

“One can only hope we can avoid being dubbed the Tammany Hall community college district.”

—Dave Lang, quoted in “College District Trustee alleges cronyism in college district.” Irvine World News, 6/22/00

Dave Lang wanted to pay tribute, too, to Donna Martin, who will retire at the end of the year. That generated applause. Everybody likes Donna.

John Williams joined Bill in expressing the desirability of a stadium at Saddleback College. He said something about a recent event attended by a former Saddleback student and “Bond girl." —"Holly" something. "Gee whiz," he seemed to say.

When the time came for trustees to request reports, Tom Fuentes solemnly requested a look at “returning veterans.” I have no idea what he wants to do with them.

EFFECTIVENESS OF BOARD AGENDAS/MEETINGS

Item 29 concerned “effectiveness of board agendas and meetings.” I’m not sure what this is about, but my guess is that Mathur’s “effectiveness” project was motivated by the following:

1. John Williams' need for beauty sleep. For some time, the fellow has been clamoring for shorter meetings.

2. Chancellors are supposed to steer the board away from trouble and needless controversy. Chancellor Mathur eschews board steerage, although his innovations have occasionally sent the board over a cliff. I think the board wants Mathur to step up and take charge.

Evidently, Raghu had prepared some sort of report or list of ideas regarding agendas, and that document was the focus of the discussion.

Nancy Padberg opined that some of the report’s ideas have not yet been “fleshed out by the board.” She seemed to favor fleshing before anything is adopted.

Nancy noted, too, that trustees still get the agenda too late (late Wednesday) to permit adequate study. Further, she seemed to imply that most or all of the innovations listed on the report came from one trustee whom she did not name. (Williams?)

Board Prez Dave Lang seemed miffed by that suggestion.

Williams, looking staunch, once again carped that the meetings go on too long.

Fuentes objected to the report’s suggestion to reorder the meetings, placing board reports last. That, he said, would diminish the role of the board, the taxpayer's representatives. He also opposed the notion of ceasing broadcast of the board meetings. It is “good and wholesome,” he said, to offer these broadcasts to the community.

Padberg agreed that the TV broadcasts are important. She seemed to say that one of the report’s suggestions—I think it was a rule prohibiting a sole trustee from pulling items from the consent calendar—“seems to be directed at me.” As you know, in the past, some trustees have complained that Nancy comes to meetings unprepared and that she wastes the board’s time with needless concerns. It’s hard to say what that’s really about with this crowd. Petty snipery, I think.

Wagner supported continuing the broadcasts and opposed the notion, evidently included in the report, that public comments should be strictly limited to two minutes.

Williams bloviated about the board’s occasional lengthy discussion of small expenditures. His concerns seemed somehow directed at Nancy Padberg, who retorted effectively with facial expressions: "You, sir, are an assh*le."

“Wild” Bill Jay announced that he never watches the TV broadcasts of board meetings, adding that “It’s tough enough living through it once!”

Padberg chimed in to say that “I don’t know what [the public] sees in [the broadcasts], but they do enjoy them.”

Eventually, trustee Fuentes reminisced about the beginning of his career. Back in 1970, he was some sort of assistant to the OC Board of Supervisors. (I believe that Fuentes worked closely with Supervisor Ronald Caspers, who ultimately disappeared mysteriously off the deck of a boat off the coast of Mexico.)


MATHUR'S COLA

Item 35 was “academic personnel actions,” including “cost-of-living adjustment [COLA], Chancellor.”

You’ll recall that, at the last meeting, Mathur attempted to sneak this item through using various ploys, including his failure to mention it during the “docket” meeting, when the Chancellor is supposed to preview the agenda. Oddly, the COLA item suddenly appeared on the agenda (with language that utterly obscured its nature) on the day of the board meeting. But his machinations were detected, and VC Bob King was instructed to properly agendize the item.

So, here it was again. Unsurprisingly, trustees Milchicker, Padberg, and Jay were opposed to granting Mathur a COLA—on the grounds that he is already extremely well paid—and trustees Williams, Wagner, Fuentes, and Lang supported the COLA on the grounds that, since other employees received a COLA, “fairness” demands that the Chancellor receive one, too.

Immediately, Padberg and Milchiker acted to “divide” the item, isolating the COLA as a separate item.

VC Gary Poertner made the “fairness” argument in favor of the COLA. But some trustees questioned that argument, noting that the chancellor has already received special treatment in other ways, as when the board granted him a huge chunk of money for his unused vacation days.

Williams held high an issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, which, he said, contained an article about CEO salaries. (Evidently, Williams is not aware that the CHE is geared mostly to four-year institutions.) On the basis of the salaries indicated there, said Williams, Chancellor Mathur, who makes about $274K, is underpaid.

Poertner and the trustees engaged in a discussion concerning the actual size of Mathur’s salary and whether it is indeed the highest for a community college chancellor in the state. Evidently, to make that determination, many factors need to be taken into account (e.g., that some CEOs receive annuities), and so the question quickly seemed to become complex—and unsettled.

Williams expressed the worry that, if the board is not careful, the district will acquire an anti-CEO reputation!

Milchiker noted that advocates of the COLA were comparing Mathur with the Chancellor of the LA district, but that district comprises nine campuses, not two. Further, Mathur presides over far fewer faculty than do the other high-salaried Chancellors who had been brought into the comparison.

Wagner opined that it is “irrational” to treat one employee differently than others. He called the question. That passed. The board then voted. Mathur got his COLA.

●●●●●

Item 36 concerned “classified personnel actions.” In the course of the discussion, it was revealed that IVC Prez Glenn Roquemore’s father-in-law was among the classified employees affected by the action. (He works at IVC.) The item was approved.

Item 39 was a report, by VC Andreea Serban, on “Research and planning functions.” Her presentation was well received. Lang asked her if the district is doing all of the things that it should be doing with regard to research, etc. Serban explained that we need to be more “proactive.” But she seemed to say that we are now on the right track. She's very tactful.

Mathur went out of his way to heap praise upon Wagner and Lang’s questions to Serban. It was a classic instance of Brown Nosery. Deep brown.

STUDY ABROAD

Item 40 was the “study abroad program” [sic]. In his introductory remarks, Mathur alluded to the “shrinkage” of the Study Abroad program owing to a “misunderstanding.” As it turns out, SOCCCD used to have 14 Study Abroad programs. Now it has two. The “misunderstanding” to which Mathur referred may have been the board’s unfortunate decision (or administrators' perception that such a decision had been made) to require unusually extensive insurance for these trips. That greatly increased trip costs and also narrowed the field of vendors. It has been disastrous.

(You’ll recall that, after the controversy caused by Fuentes’ rejection of the Santander, Spain trip partly on the basis of Spain’s pull-out from Iraq, Fuentes quickly distanced himself from that rationale and focused instead on issues regarding security and cost. The board then acted to increase the insurance. Or Mathur and Co. misunderstood the board's intent re changes in insurance, and the insurance was increased. Disastrously.)

Andreea Serban made a thorough presentation. She explained that SA programs are increasingly popular. She pointed out that most colleges carry $1-3 million in insurance, though $5-10 million is “appropriate.” As thing stand, the board requires $50 million. She offered some recommendations.

Wagner liked the report but noted that Serban seemed to be selling the idea of SA to the board. In fact, he said, the board supports SA. It’s just that these programs and trips should be “accessible," he said.

Fuentes again expressed his usual creepy concerns about minors going on these trips—16-year-olds who will end up sleeping in rooms with 18-year-olds. Plus these minors could get ahold of alcohol!

The notion was expressed that it was "unrealistic" to try to monitor students 24/7. Plus we can't stop 'em from boozing it up here at home either.

At the end of the meeting, the governance groups offered reports.

IVC student government Prez Rockwell Bower expressed concerns about security at the college. He noted that, recently, a student was found dead in his car (by his father, at 11 in the morning). Evidently, the student had been in the car, in the parking lot, through the night (he died at about 1:30 a.m.), and yet security had failed to investigate.

You might want to read the Lariat's November 21 issue. it includes an informative article entitled "Student dies on campus":

A 21-year-old IVC student was found dead in his car approximately 10 hours after his time of death Nov. 14, according to the OC Coroner's Office.

...The slow reaction time of the campus police has raised questions from student leaders as well as police.

...Saddleback chief of police Harry Parmer was...curious about the response time..."That's a little unusual that no one noticed the car there," said...Parmer..."Ten hours is a long time for the police officer to not patrol the parking lot."

...The time of death was approximately 1:30 a.m. Nov. 14....

In the same issue, in an article entitled "Chancellor receives COLA raise," Mathur is quoted as saying:

"I think [my receiving the COLA] was only fair...You can't single out one employee when all other employees have been given COLA. This is common courtesy and practice."

IVC's Bower is also quoted:

"I don't see the validity of giving a pay raise to the highest paid chancellor in the state in the third safest city in the nation with only two schools to manage."

Tonight's board meeting in pics

I'll have a full report on the meeting tomorrow. Right now, I've got to feed the cat, and so I'll just mention some big obvious stuff.

Tonight's meeting wasn't the Big Ugly, not like last month's outing, but it had its moments. Like the point, near the end, when Dave Lang, starin' at the clock, pretty much strong-armed the panel of Presidents, governance group leaders, et al., to skip their reports, and then Nancy said something like, "Hold on, Bean Boy, where's the fire? Let 'em speak", and Dave got all pissy about how he hadn't stopped anybody from squawking, but he had.

Once again, Chancellor Mathur recommended giving himself a big fat raise (in the form of a COLA), and Nancy, Marcia, and Bill just weren't having it. The discussion was kinda fun. It reached its nadir when John Williams pulled out a copy of the Chronicle--I'm sure he's never seen one before--held it grandly in the air, and then read from it statistics about the average pay for presidents or CEOs. Naturally, their pay was way up there.

For once, though, Bill Jay was on the ball, and he said something like, "Um, John, the standards are different for four-year institutions." Well duh.

John made an ugly face, I think. It's hard to tell. He yammered about how we've got to be competitive, salary-wise. He compared Goo's salary with the salaries of others around the state.

Marcia noted that, FTEF-wise (i.e., relative to the number of faculty), compared to all those other CEOs, Mathur was at the very bottom of the barrel. Bottomer, even.

Raghu's nose twitched.

The other "highlight" came when Andreea Serban gave a fine and well-received report on our Study Abroad programs. Turns out these SA programs are very much on the rise nation-wide, and even the government is pushin' 'em. Serban spelled out various relevant facts, told a joke about Romania, and even managed to make Kevin O look good.

She's a star.

The truth is that Fuentes (and later Fuentes/Wagner) have pretty much set back the cause of Study Abroad programs several decades, or several months anyway. We used to have 14 such programs--14!--but after Tom got done offing the Santander trip (owing to his hatred for Carmenmara & Spaniards & himself), we're now down to two trips.

I was surprised. Man!

Part of the problem was the board's idiotic decision, two years ago, to insist on $500 billion in insurance for the students--OK, it was just $50 million. I guess they wanted to make sure the kids would be insured in case of nuclear wars or gypsy attacks. But this insurance requirement pretty much thinned out the vendors to nothing, leaving just a couple of used car salesmen.

The upshot: Study Abroad-wise, in the good ol' SOCCCD, everything is now utterly FUBAR, and--wouldn't you know it?--the one thing you never heard tonight was the Troublemint Twins fessin' up to their FUBARitude. Oh no, never that.

Mostly, though, it was a good meeting, and Saddleback got some kind of prize for its football (?) team creamin' the competition. Everybody was pretty smiley about that, as you can see.